Cases

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This appeal was considered on a petition for review and cross-application for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board and was briefed and argued by counsel. It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition for review be denied and the cross-application for enforcement be granted. The National Labor Relations Board se

OPINION Justice ROBINSON, for the Court. The plaintiff, Reynalda Weeks, appeals from an order of the Providence County Superior Court entered on January 30, 2012, staying her civil action in that court and ordering that the “matter * * * be resolved through binding arbitration as required by the governing Collective Bargaining Ag

Supreme Court No. 2025-21-Appeal. (PC 24-249) Clifton Peasley : v. : City of Providence, by and through : its Treasurer, Shomari Husband. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers are reque

OPINION Justice GOLDBERG, for the Court. This case came before the Supreme Court on October 30, 2014, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not summarily be decided. *656 The plain

OPINION Justice GOLDBERG, for the court. This case came before the Supreme Court on April 29, 2015, on appeal by International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local 801 (union), from a Superior Court order granting the City of Cran-ston’s (city) motion to vacate an arbitration award in the union’s favor. The union asserts that the Superior Court justic

April 6, 2023 Supreme Court No. 2021-111-Appeal. (PC 19-5440) Michael H. Hayden, D.O., et al. : v. : Integra Community Care Network, : LLC, et al. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers

Before this Court, defendant argues that the hearing justice erred when he found that the Lease's arbitration clause applied only to disputes that do not involve an alleged breach of the Lease. II Standard of Review "The issue of whether a dispute is arbitrable is a question of law that this Court reviews

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MARY M. LISI, District Judge. Plaintiff Richard T. Proulx (“Plaintiff’) instituted this action alleging violations of the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-112-1 et seq. (“RICRA”), the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-1 et seq. (“FEPA”), and the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-87-1 e

The plaintiff, Family Dollar Stores of Rhode Island, Inc. (Family Dollar), appeals from a September 20, 2016 judgment entered in Providence County Superior Court in favor of the defendants, Justin B. Araujo and the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights (the Commission), following an August 16, 2016 bench decision dismissing Family Dollar's case without prejudice. Family Dollar argues on appeal that the hearing justice erred in di

OPINION Justice Robinson, for the Court. This case comes before us pursuant to a September 26, 2013 order of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island certifying a question to this Court in accordance with Article I, Rule 6(a) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appel

Supreme Court No. 2014-88 (13-92 S) Mark Mancini : v. : City of Providence et al. : NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme

William E. Smith, Chief Judge *462Before the Court are Plaintiff Mark Mancini's Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant City of Providence's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.1 After considering the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, for the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED and Defendant's motion is GRAN

Justice GOLDBERG, concurring in part and dissenting in part. This case highlights the tension between the summary judgment standard and the *1178substantive framework applied to employment discrimination claims. Although this Court has adopted the three-step McDonnell-Douglas framework in these cases, we did

OPINION AND ORDER JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge: This dispute arises out of a complicated insurance scheme executed by several affiliated insurance carriers, and their other affiliates, that was allegedly designed to circumvent the insurance laws of, among other states, New York. It involves three allegedly interconnected contracts that, according to the plaintiffs, should be treated as one interdependent t

Goldberg, District Judge. Responding to the problem of wage inequality for women and minorities, the City of Philadelphia has enacted an ordinance amending Title 9 of The Philadelphia Code to include provisions on wage equity. The ordinance has two parts. First, it prohibits an employer from inquiring about a prospective employee's wage history ("the Inquiry Provision"); and second, it makes it illegal for an employer to rely on wag

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APACHE STRONGHOLD, a No. 21-15295 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:21-cv-00050- SPL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; OPINION THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); RANDY MOORE, Chief, USDA For

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APACHE STRONGHOLD, a No. 21-15295 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:21-cv-00050- SPL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; OPINION THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); RANDY MOORE, Chief, USDA For

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APACHE STRONGHOLD, a No. 21-15295 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:21-cv-00050- SPL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ORDER AND THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary, AMENDED U.S. Department of Agriculture OPIN

HONORABLE KAREN NELSON MOORE, United States Circuit Judge, HONORABLE TIMOTHY S. BLACK, United States District Judge, HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WATSON, United States District Judge *992TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND...994 A. General Overview of the Facts...994 B. Procedural History...1009 II

ACCEPTED 13-14-00725-cv THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 7/23/2