Cases

540 F.Supp.2d 717 (2008) AMERICAN COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, LLC d/b/a Star Community Newspapers, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF PLANO, Defendant. No. 4:06cv295. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division. February 8, 2008. *718 John Randolph Thompson, III, Bridget Alison Blinn, J. Frank Kinsel, Jr., Cantey & Hanger, Fo

725 A.2d 64 (1999) 319 N.J. Super. 200 FUNERAL HOME MANAGEMENT, INC., t/a Volk-Leber Funeral Homes, and Volk Funeral Homes Corp., Plaintiffs-Respondents/Cross-Appellants, v. William BASRALIAN, Defendant-Appellant, and Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Oradell, Defendant. Funeral Home Management, Inc., t/a Volk-Leber Funeral Homes, and Volk Funeral Homes Corp., Plaintiffs-Respondents/Cross-Appellants,

MEMORANDUM OPINION Paul W. Grimm, United States District Judge On August 18, 2015, Plaintiff Nohara Rivero and her colleague at Legal Aid Bureau, Inc. (“Legal Aid”) conducted outreach to migrant farmworkers employed by Defendant Fruits and Vegetables by Lewis Orchard, LLC (“Lewis Orchards”), which.is owned by Defendants Robert and Linda Lewis (collectively, “the Lewises”).1 When

Opinión disidente emitida por la Juez Asociada Señora Ro-dríguez Rodríguez. De repente se detuvo; una interro-gación enteramente inesperada y extraordinariamente sencilla hubo de herirle la mente, dejándolo estupefacto.(1) Disiento enérgicamente de la opinión que hoy emite una mayoría de este Tribunal por entender que, mediante ésta, se utiliza el

MEMORANDUM & ORDER HURLEY, Senior District Judge: Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking a declaration that ordinance 215-3A of the Town of Smithtown, New York is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs also seek damages arising from of the threatened enforcement of the Ordinance. Now before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss the compla

*153Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioners contend that a village ordinance making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment. Through this facial challenge, we consider the door-to-door canvassing regulation not only as it appli

OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT J. JONKER, District Judge. In this case, Plaintiffs James Speet and Ernest Sims challenge a Michigan statute, Mich. Comp. L. § 750.167(l)(h), that makes it a crime to beg in a public place. They assert that the statute, both on its face and as applied to them, violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

985 A.2d 72 (2009) 189 Md. App. 474 Willie Lee PARKER v. STATE of Maryland. No. 1351, September Term, 2006. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. December 29, 2009. *74 Juan P. Reyes (Nancy S. Forster, Public Defender, on brief), for Appellant. Robert Taylor, Jr. (Douglas Gansler, Atty. Gen., on bri

Hon. David N. Hilgendorff Corporation Counsel, Long Beach This is in response to your recent letter wherein you ask our opinion as to whether a municipality may prohibit all door-to-door solicitation by charitable, civic and religious not-for-profit corporations. You also ask us whether a municipality may require a not-for-profit corporation to obtain a license to be granted by a clerk of the municipality at his/her discretion. You thereafter ask us whether the municipality may

BOUDIN, Circuit Judge. To abate crime, Puerto Rico adopted a Controlled Access Law, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 23, §§ 64-64h (2008), allowing local entities (called “urbanizations”), organized by the community but approved by the municipality, to control street access to areas within towns that have voted in favor of such plans. Appellants are two corporations operated by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses1

Supreme Court of Louisiana FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #027 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 26th day of June, 2019, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2019-C-0040 ELIZABETH SOILEAU v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. In this workers' compensation matter, we are presented with the question of whether an employee's motion to compel her employer

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 09-2273 WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.; CONGREGACIÓN CRISTIANA DE LOS TESTIGOS DE JEHOVÁ DE PUERTO RICO, INC., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. ANTONIO M. SEGARDÍA DE JESÚS, in his official capacity as Secretary of Justice; LUIS G. FORTUÑO, in his official capacity as Governor; HÉCTOR MORALES

35 F.Supp.2d 575 (1999) OHIO CITIZEN ACTION, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SEVEN HILLS, Defendant. No. 1:98 CV 1205. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. February 2, 1999. Kirk B Roose, Roose & Birmingham, Oberlin, OH, for Ohio Citizen Action, plaintiff. Richard A. Pignatiello, Seven Hills, OH, for City of Seven Hills, defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT Angela Mazzarelli, J. This case concerns an issue, hitherto unresolved, that has arisen recently in numerous cases in New York City Criminal Court. *477The facts are not in dispute. Defendant is an artist who paints floral pastels in the style of René Magritte. He does not, and does not claim to have, any license

LUCERO, Circuit Judge. Burdened by the City of Pleasant Grove’s ordinance establishing a solicitors licensing procedure, plaintiffs — individuals and entities engaged in selling Kirby vacuum cleaners through door-to-door solicitations — sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that the licensing ordinance violated their First Amendment commercial speech rights. The case proceeded t

485 A.2d 134 (1984) COLCHESTER FIRE DISTRICT NO. 2 v. Gerald SHARROW. No. 83-427. Supreme Court of Vermont. October 26, 1984. *135 William G. Congleton, Essex Junction, for plaintiff-appellee. Paul R. Morwood, Burlington, for defendant-appellant. Before BILLINGS, C.J., and HILL, UNDERWOOD, PECK and GIBSON, JJ. <

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in those part of Judge Kennedy’s opinion entitled “The 1986 Amendments as a ‘Clarification,’ ” and “Retroactive Application.” I would add to the “clarification” discussion, however, that the district court was not free to reevaluate a statutory interpretation reached by this court. In light of Bodd

361 F.Supp.2d 268 (2005) In re REZULIN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This paper relates to: 00 Civ. 7632, 01 Civ. 0049, 01 Civ. 3560, 01 Civ. 5763, 01 Civ. 5764, 01 Civ. 6053, 01 Civ. 6054, 01 Civ. 6065, 01 Civ. 6057, 01 Civ. 6058, 01 Civ. 6059, 01 Civ. 6060, 01 Civ. 6062, 01 Civ. 8159, 01 Civ. 10562, 01 Civ. 10563, 01 Civ. 10564, 01 Civ. 11878, 02 Civ. 1719, 02 Civ. 1724, 02 Civ. 9952. MDL No. 1348, Master File No. 00 Civ. 284

STEWART, Presiding Judge. Plaintiff challenges the denial of his petition for a declaratory judgment in which he sought to have two ordinances establishing utility rates of defendant City declared unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The trial court entered judgment in defendant City’s favor. We affirm. The City of Wentzville owns and operates a water and sewer system. Ordinance 6

Case: 25-30325 Document: 88-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/25/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED June 25, 2026