Cases

ORDER LEIGH MARTIN MAY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This case comes before the Court on Defendants City of Atlanta, Georgia, and Mayor Kasim Reed’s Motion to Dismiss [11]. Following a review of the record, a hearing on the matter, and due consideration, the-Court enters the following Order. - I. Factual Background The facts relied upon in th

WILSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting, joined by MARTIN, JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges: I dissent because Plaintiffs’ request for nominal damages saves this constitutional case from mootness. This conclusion is far from novel; courts have held, in varying types of eases, that nominal damages save a case from mootness. See, e.g., Morgan v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist., 589 F.3d 740, 748, 748

714 S.E.2d 109 (2011) 310 Ga. App. 597 CITY OF ATLANTA v. BENATOR et al. Benator et al. v. K & V Meter Automation, LLC et al. K & V Meter Automation, LLC et al. v. City of Atlanta. Metals & Materials Engineers, LLC v. City of Atlanta. Nos. A11A0769, A11A0770, A11A0771, A11A0772. Court of Appeals of Georgia.

320 Ga. 381 FINAL COPY S24A0726. GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF CLUB EXECUTIVES, INC. v. STATE OF GEORGIA. S24A0772. GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF CLUB EXECUTIVES, INC. v. O'CONNELL. PETERSON, Presiding Justice. Georgia local governments have often imposed total bans on adult entertainment establishments offering the combination of nude dancing and serving alcohol. We have often upheld those bans against First Amendment challenges. See Maxim Cabaret, Inc. v.

695 S.E.2d 576 (2010) WINDSOR f/k/a Bank et al. v. CITY OF ATLANTA. No. S10A0102. Supreme Court of Georgia. May 17, 2010. *577 Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin, Richard N. Hubert, Nicholas S. Papleacos, Atlanta, for appellant. Jackel & Phillips, Dana L. Jackel, Christopher L. Phillips, Marietta, for

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion.

McFadden, Judge. On June 14, 2007, Mack Pitts was killed while working on a construction project at the Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International *600Airport, when he was struck by a vehicle driven by an employee of A&G Trucking, Inc. In an action separate from the present case, Pitts’s estate through its administratrix and his minor children through their mothers

815 F.2d 716 *Brightv.City of Atlanta 86-8380 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. 3/19/87 1 N.D.Ga. AFFIRMED 2 ---------------

USCA11 Case: 23-10343 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 07/29/2024 Page: 1 of 43 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-10343 ____________________ CLARISSA GILMORE,

PER CURIAM: After review and oral argument, we affirm the March 27, 2006 and May 11, 2006 orders of the district court that, taken together, grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee on all of the plaintiffs-appellants’ claims. We affirm for the reasons outlined in these two thorough orders entered by the district court. AFFIRMED.

THIRD DIVISION DILLARD, P. J., GOBEIL and PIPKIN, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules April

685 F.Supp.2d 1360 (2010) ATLANTA ALLERGY AND ASTHMA CLINIC, P.A., Plaintiff, v. ALLERGY & ASTHMA OF ATLANTA, LLC; Maziar Rezvani, M.D.; and Luqman Seidu, M.D., Defendants. No. 1:08-cv-3033-WSD. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. January 19, 2010. *1364 Joseph Duane Wargo, Samantha Dipolito, Wargo &

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion. In the

(2008) THE LAMAR COMPANY, L.L.C., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MARIETTA, GEORGIA, and Rusty Roth, Defendants. Civil Action No. 1:07-CV-00764-BBM. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. February 25, 2008. ORDER BEVERLY B. MARTIN, District Judge. This case involving various constitutional claims made regarding the City of

Self, Judge. *729Ronald Lee appeals from the trial court's order granting Mercury Insurance Company of Georgia's ("Mercury") motion for summary judgment and denying his cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of insurance coverage following a house fire. Lee contends that the trial court erred by concluding that the policy did not provid

455 F.Supp.2d 1347 (2006) SCQUARE INTERNATIONAL, LTD., Plaintiff, v. BBDO ATLANTA, INC., Defendant. No. 1:04-CV-0641-JEC. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. September 22, 2006. *1348 *1349 *1350 *1351

Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court. *1503 The Copyright Act grants potent, decades-long monopoly protection for "original works of authorship." 17 U.S.C. § 102 <

HULL, Circuit Judge: Appellee Jerry M. Stanley, a police officer, brought this § 1983 action against Appellant James D. Chadwick, the Chief of Police, alleging wrongful termination in violation of his first amendment rights. Chadwick appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We reverse. I. FACTU

07/05/2022 DA 20-0609 Case Number: DA 20-0609 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2022 MT 129 ARIANE WITTMAN and JEREMY TAYLEN, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF BILL

ORDER TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, SR., District Judge. Judicial redistricting is not ideal. So where legislative action can remedy an unconstitutional or unlawful election plan, redistricting should be left to elected officials. Perry v. Perez, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 934, 941, 181 L.Ed.2d 900 (2012). Yet this rule is not without exception, such as when the timing of an upcoming election makes le