Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REED O’CONNOR, District Judge. Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support (ECF No. 23), Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30), Appendix to Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31), and Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 33). Having considere

MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN D. BATES, District Judge. Defendant Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, has moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims of plaintiffs retaliation complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. Plaintiff Janet Allen was the Director

In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Austin, J), dated January 26, 2005, as denied that branch of his motion which was to strike the first affirmative defense alleging unclean hands based upon the defendant’s alleged failure to comply with a demand for a verified bill of particulars with respect to that defense. Ordered that the order is affirmed in

143 P.3d 1023 (2006) The FORTY-SEVENTH LEGISLATURE OF the STATE of Arizona; The Arizona State Senate; The Arizona House of Representatives; Ken Bennett, individually and as President, Arizona State Senate; and James P. Weiers, individually and as Speaker, Arizona House of Representatives, Petitioners, v. Janet NAPOLITANO, Governor of the State of Arizona; Arizona Department of Administration and William Bell, Director; and Arizona State Personnel

Case: 14-10049 Document: 00512995490 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 7, 2015 No. 14-10049

534 U.S. 407 (2002) KANSAS v. CRANE No. 00-957. United States Supreme Court. Argued October 30, 2001. Decided January 22, 2002. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS *408 Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joine

Judgment and order affirmed; no opinion. Concur: CRANE, Ch. J., LEHMAN, O'BRIEN, HUBBS, CROUCH, LOUGHRAN and FINCH, JJ.

Randy Crane, United States District Judge I. Introduction Now before the Court is Plaintiffs' Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"), through which Plaintiffs seek to enjoin implementation and enforcement of the "Order of Commissioners Court of Starr County, Texas Setting Policy for Prohibition of Electioneering in or on Property Owned or under the Care, Custody and Control of

The People of the State of New York, againstNelson Pena, Defendant-Appellant. Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), rendered December 9, 2016, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of menacing in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and harassment in the second degre

Matter of White v SEG Maintenance, Inc. (2022 NY Slip Op 03300) Matter of White v SEG Maintenance, Inc. 2022 NY Slip Op 03300 Decided on May 19, 2022 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law

II. LEGAL STANDARDS Pursuant to the Second Circuit's direction, the court addresses only "issues of jurisdiction and justiciability" at this point in the proceedings. (Oct. 24, 2017, USCA Order; Oct. 27, 2017, Order (Dkt. 98).) Accordingly, the court will consider only those portions of Defendants' motion to dismiss that challenge the court's subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civi

WIGGINS, Justice (specially concurring). I join the majority opinion and write separately to emphasize the issue of prose-cutorial discretion. Martha Aracely Martinez was born in Mexico. Her parents brought her to Mus-catine, Iowa, when she was eleven years old. It was not her choice to come here. Since then, she has lived in Muscatine, attended local schools, and worked in the com

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0057p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ BRADLEY PATTON, on behalf of himself and others │ similarly s

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ross, J.), dated December 21, 2004, which denied his motion, inter alia, to hold the plaintiff in contempt for allegedly misrepresenting her assets in her revised net worth statement, and to award him a $158,000 credit against support arrears owed to the plaintiff because of an alleged sale by her of marital property.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pines, J.), dated November 30, 2005, as granted, without a hearing, the motion of the defendant wife’s former attorney for an award of an attorney’s fee and directed him to pay the defendant wife’s former attorney the sum of $38,192.10. Ordered that t

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), entered March 21, 2006, which, upon an order of the same court dated March 29, 2005, granting those branches of the motion of the defendant Lutheran Medical Center pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) which were to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and against it on the issue of liability,

Chief Justice BALES, opinion of the Court. ¶ 1 Under Arizona law, a right to use surface water may be acquired by appropriation. This right may be severed from the land to which it is appurtenant and, subject to the approval of the Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources (“ADWR”) and other conditions listed in A.R.S. § 45-172, may be transferred without losing its priority. “Interested persons”

PER CURIAM. | ,In this matter, we are called upon to decide whether the court of appeal erred in reversing a judgment of the Office of Workers’ Compensation (“OWC”), which *1255held that the claimant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a workplace accident occurred. For the reasons that follow, we conclude the court of appeal erred in revers

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated July 25, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. *311Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant Carmine Cata

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) MOHAMED AL SERAJI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 19-2839 (RBW) ) CHAD F