Cases

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge. After the Minnesota Department of Human Services denied Eric Wong “shelter needy” benefits and stated that it would revoke other benefits that Wong had been receiving, Wong filed suit in federal court. Wong sought review of the state agency’s decision. In addition, he raised claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act (“

OPINION ANNOUNCING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT GREENBERG, Circuit Judge. These consolidated appeals have been taken from judgments and orders in three civil actions against the City of Philadelphia and certain of its former officials and employees. The plaintiffs’ claims arose out of an attempt by the Philadelphia Police Department on May 13,1985, to execute search warrants and arrest warrants at a premises

Waldorf System, Inc., and Affiliated Corporations, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, RespondentWaldorf System, Inc. v. CommissionerDocket Nos. 27128, 32808United States Tax Court

849 F.Supp. 331 (1994) In re CITY OF PHILADELPHIA LITIGATION. Ramona AFRICA v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al. Civ. A. No. 87-2678. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. January 25, 1994. *332 *333 Thomas R. Kline, Alvin F. de Levie, Donald M. Temple (co-counsel), Philadelphia, PA,

679 F.Supp. 1478 (1988) Steven LEVINE, Plaintiff, v. The SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN and Chief Justice Nathan S. Heffernan, Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Justice William A. Bablitch, Justice William G. Callow, Justice Louis J. Ceci, Justice Roland B. Day, Justice Donald W. Steinmetz, in their official capacities as Justices of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin and Stephen L. Smay, Executive Director of the State Bar of Wisconsin; and the State Bar o

338 F.Supp. 67 (1972) Carolyn BRADLEY et al. v. The SCHOOL BOARD OF the CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, et al. Civ. A. No. 3353. United States District Court, E. D. Virginia, Richmond Division. January 5, 1972. Order January 10, 1972. *68 *69 *70

MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, Circuit Judge: When the government ignores a taxpayer’s contentions as to the real world conditions of the marketplace, despite the requirements of Congress that it consider them, it invites the result reached here. Martin L. Springfield brought this action to recover various employment taxes, penalties and interest paid under protest

BEAM, Circuit Judge. Theresa Aguiniga appeals the district court’s 1 decision affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny Aguiniga social security disability benefits. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Aguiniga, a 44-year-old woman (at the time of her alleged onset date), was i

306 F.Supp.2d 895 (2004) James E. ATTIA, Plaintiff, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. No. CIV. 02-3037. United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Central Division. February 23, 2004. *896 *897 Plaintiff was Pro Se. Cheryl Schremp

21 F.Supp.2d 941 (1998) Mary M. SIMUEL, SS # XXX-XX-XXXX, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner, Social Security Administration,[1] Defendant. No. LR-C-97-892. United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Eastern Division. September 2, 1998. *942 James W. Stanley, Jr., The Stanley Law Firm, P.A., North Little Ro

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROGERS, District Judge. This is an action for review of a decision to deny applications for benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Review is requested under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 5 U.S.C. § 706. Plaintiff has also requested a jury trial. There is no right to a jury trial in this type of ease. Ginter v. Secretary of Dep

*809 Opinion MOSK, J. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs and appellants Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission (Commission) and Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Association (Association) 1 appeal from a judgment a

Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. *1691 In 1868, the Crow Tribe ceded most of its territory in modern-day Montana and Wyoming to the United States. In exchange, the United States promised that the Crow Tribe "shall have the right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of the

873 F.Supp. 1403 (1994) Martin L. SPRINGFIELD d/b/a Douglas Motors, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America, Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. Martin L. SPRINGFIELD d/b/a Douglas Motors, Counterclaim Defendant. Civ. No. 91-1764-AJB. United States District Court, S.D. California. December 9, 1994.

744 P.2d 491 (1987) The UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Robert W. JESSE, Water Division No. 2 Engineer; State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources and all other Departments, Agencies and Divisions, and on behalf of the People of the State of Colorado; City and County of Denver, By and Through its Board of Water Commissioners; Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District; Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company; City of Colorado

522 F.Supp. 576 (1981) Wendy Susan IRWIN, Plaintiff, v. John CALHOUN et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 80-1818-G. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. September 16, 1981. *577 *578 William Joyce, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff. Elizabeth Laing, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boston, Mass., fo

411 S.W.2d 72 (1967) Floyd E. WILHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Luther and Glen HURD, d/b/a Springfield Tire Exchange, Hawkeye-Security Insurance Company, and State Treasurer, State of Missouri, Custodian, Second Injury Fund, Defendants-Appellants. No. 52044. Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1. January 9, 1967. Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer Denied F

495 S.W.2d 643 (1973) The METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT, a municipal corporation, et al., Respondents, v. Frank E. ZYKAN[1] et al., Appellants. No. 56130. Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1. May 14, 1973. Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer Denied June 11, 1973. *646 Charles B. Kaiser, J

372 F.Supp. 223 (1974) I-291 WHY? ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and its members v. Joseph B. BURNS, as Connecticut Commissioner of Transportation, et al. Civ. No. H-229. United States District Court, D. Connecticut. February 7, 1974. *224 *225 *226 Hayne

Ekancis, J. (dissenting). Workmen’s compensation is designed to be a substitute or partial substitute for wages during a period of temporary incapacity arising out of work-connected injuries and thereafter during the period of payment prescribed for any permanent disability which likewise resulted from such injuries. That beneficent social purpose, in order to have practical utility, must be administered with dispatch. “The deside