Cases

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This Cause having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED' and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detr

7/13/2022 10:29:37 AM Compare Results Old File: New File: old_20-1530.pdf 20-1530.pdf versus 89 pages (424 KB) 89 pages (

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detr

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 602 U. S. Part 1 Pages 572–652 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 20, 2024 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE MDL Dkt. No. 1869 ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. I) Miscellaneous No. 07-489 (MDL I) Judge Beryl A. Howell IN RE RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. II)

18-421 United States v. Anastasio In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit ______________ August Term, 2019 (Argued: April 28, 2020 Decided: August 19, 2020) Docket Nos. 15-1453-cr(L), 18-328-cr(Con), 18-369-cr(Con), 18-421-cr(Con)

18-421 United States v. Anastasio In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit ______________ August Term, 2019 (Argued: April 28, 2020 Decided: August 19, 2020 Amended: September 1, 2020) Docket Nos. 15-

48 F.3d 1092 1995-1 Trade Cases P 71,053 US WEST, INC.; US West Communications; US West MultimediaCommunications, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees,andWashington Independent Telephone Association; PacificTelecom, Inc. (PTI), and its Subsidiaries,Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellees,v.UNITED STATES of America; Federal CommunicationsCommission; Janet Reno, Attorney General,Defendants-Appella

ORDER The motion of appellee Washington Independent Telephone Association to correct the opinion in this case is hereby GRANTED. The opinion filed December 30, 1994, is amended in accordance with the opinion attached hereto. OPINION CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge: ' US West, Inc. and several affiliated companies (hereinafter referred t

Back Pay Act; 5 U.S.C. § 5596; Class Action; FBI Police; 28 U.S.C. § 540C; Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment; RCFC 56 OPINION FIRESTONE, Senior Judge. Pending before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) filed by named plaintiffs Jeffrey B. King,

*537Justice Thomas, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Alito join, concurring in part and dissenting in part. The Court holds that the term “visitorial powers” as used in the National Bank Act (NBA), 12 U. S. C. § 484(a), refers only “to a sovereign’s

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-CF-322 09/21/2017 PRINCE JONES, APPELLANT,

Trial; Settlement agreement; No breach of contract; Contract interpretation; Incorporation of ATF Orders; Covenant of good faith and fair dealing; Parameters; Metcalf— covenant may be breached even if there is no breach of the underlying contract; Withdrawal of backstopping; Inadequate responses to threats; Damages; Recovery for emotional distress, as well as pain and suffering; Restatement (S

Case: 19-1277 Document: 49 Page: 1 Filed: 03/25/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ANAHEIM GARDENS, L.P., THETFORD PROPERTIES III, L.P., THETFORD PROPERTIES IV, L.P., B-L ASSOCIATES, L.P., C-W ASSOCIATES, L.P., GLENVIEW GARDENS L.P., INDIAN HEAD MANOR, L.P. I, METRO WEST LIMITED, L.P., MILLWOOD ASSOCIATES L.P., NAPA PARK APARTMENTS L.P., ONTARIO TOWNHOUSES, L.P., PALOMAR APARTMENTS,

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 16-826L (Filed: November 20, 2019) ) MINISTERIO ROCA SOLIDA, INC., ) Keywords: Fifth Amendment; Takings ) Clause; Takings Claim; Flooding; Plaintiff, ) Summary Judgment; Causation;

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES 0. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed July 16, 2012 (Doc. 66); (ii) the Defendants’ Motion for Leave of Court to Reply to Plaintiffs’ Reply to Hopkins’ Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, filed September 4, 2012 (Doc. 106) (“Motion for Surreply”); and (iii) the Defe

MEMORANDUM, ORDER, & JUDGMENT JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge. Table of Contents I. Introduction..............................................................168 II. Facts........................ 170 A. Procedural History....................................................170 B. Evidence on Poker..................

609 F.3d 264 (2010) UNITED STATES of America v. Michael Anthony MARCAVAGE, Appellant. No. 09-3573. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued April 13, 2010. Filed June 16, 2010. *269 C. Scott Shields, (Argued), Shields & Hoppe, Media, PA, Counsel for Appellant. Richard W. Goldberg, (Argued)