Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
13 opinions for “Bowles v. Macomb Community College”
Glenn Bowles v. Gretchen Whitmerpublic domain
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 24a0249p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ GLENN BOWLES; KENNETH FRANKS; ROBERT │ GARDN
410 F.2d 62 CHRYSLER CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation,Plaintiff-Appellee, United States of America,Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee,v.TOWNSHIP OF STERLING, MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN, WilliamKerner, its Treasurer, Defendants-Appellants.CHRYSLER CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation,Plaintiff-Appellee, United States of America,Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee,v.TOWNSHIP OF STERLING, MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN, William
Porter Smith v. MDOCpublic domain
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0317p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ PORTER SMITH, │ Plaintiff-Appellant
Yvon Wagner v. County of Maricopapublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YVON WAGNER, as the personal No. 10-15501 representative of the Estate of Eric Vogel, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:07-cv-00819- EHC v. COUNTY OF MARICOPA , a political ORDER AND subdivision of the State of Arizona; AMENDED JOSEPH M. ARPAIO , h
Wagner v. County of Maricopapublic domain
673 F.3d 977 (2012) Yvon WAGNER, as the personal representative of the Estate of Eric Vogel, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MARICOPA, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona; Joseph M. Arpaio, husband; Unknown Arpaio, named as Jane Doe Arpaio-wife, Defendants-Appellees. No. 10-15501. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 15, 2011.<
Yvon Wagner v. County of Maricopapublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YVON WAGNER, as the personal No. 10-15501 representative of the Estate of Eric Vogel, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:07-cv-00819- EHC v. COUNTY OF MARICOPA , a political ORDER AND subdivision of the State of Arizona; OPINION JOSEPH M. ARPAIO , h
Cason-Merenda v. Detroit Medical Centerpublic domain
OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GERALD E. ROSEN, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION In this case, the Plaintiff registered nurses (“RNs”), Pat Cason-Merenda and Jeffrey A. Suhre, seek to recover on behalf of themselves and a class of RNs against eight Detroit-area hospitals, alleging that the Defendant health care providers have violated §
County of Oakland v. City of Detroitpublic domain
DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judge. Oakland County, Michigan, brought a federal antitrust and RICO action against the City of Detroit and its mayor, among others, on account of alleged overcharges for sewerage services. Macomb County, Michigan, was allowed to intervene in the action as an additional party plaintiff. The prices paid for the sewerage services were a function of the costs Detroit incurred in providing
John B. v. Goetzpublic domain
MEMORANDUM WILLIAM J. HAYNES, JR., District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I.History of this Litigation....................................................796 A. Consent Decree and Earlier Proceedings..................................797 B. The Court’s 2001 Findings of the Defendants’ Noncompliance................801 C. T
The County Of Oakland v. The City Of Detroitpublic domain
866 F.2d 839 57 USLW 2454, 1989-1 Trade Cases 68,413,1989-1 Trade Cases 68,570,RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 7132 The COUNTY OF OAKLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,andThe County of Macomb, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,v.The CITY OF DETROIT, et al., Defendants-Appellees,Nancy Allevato, Michael J. Ferrantino, Sr., Wayne Disposal,Inc., Charles Carson, Michigan Disposal,
Chrysler Corp. v. Township of Sterlingpublic domain
WEICK, Chief Judge (dissenting). I regret that I must dissent from the majority opinion for I am of the firm belief that our decision in these appeals is not controlled by the two Michigan cases *77decided by the Supreme Court in City of Detroit1 and Township of Muskegon2.
Bradley v. Millikenpublic domain
PHILLIPS, Chief Judge. • This is a school desegregation case which, as originally filed, was directed against the school system of Detroit, Michigan, but on this appeal involves both Detroit and school districts located in the surrounding metropolitan area. The present appeal is the fourth time that the case has been before this court since the complaint was filed August 18, 1970. The earlier decisions of
Bradley v. Millikenpublic domain
484 F.2d 215 Ronald BRADLEY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.William G. MILLIKEN, Governor of Michigan, etc.; Board ofEducation of the City of Detroit, Defendants-Appellants,andDetroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, AmericanFederation of Teachers, AFL-CIO,Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee,andAllen Park Public Schools et al., Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants,andKerry Green et al., Defendants-Intervenors-Appe