Cases

BACHARACH, Circuit Judge. This antitrust class action stems from an allegation that Dow Chemical Company conspired with competitors to fix prices for polyurethane chemical products. Over Dow’s objection, the district court certified a plaintiff class including all industrial purchasers of polyurethane products during the alleged conspiracy period. The action went to trial, and the jury returned a verdict against Dow. The dis

141 F.3d 1187 98 CJ C.A.R. 1672 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995,

MEMORANDUM OPINION BERYL A. HOWELL, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on Defendant WMATA’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 32], and Plaintiffs Motion to Grant Continuance, Extension of Time on Interrogatory and Deposition [ECF No. 30], Motions for an Order Compelling Disclosure and Discovery Response Pursuant

381 F.3d 1039 TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; and Liberty Cable of Missouri, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellants,v.EVEREST MIDWEST LICENSEE, L.L.C., dba Everest Connections Corp., Defendant-Appellee,Atrium Partners, L.P., a Kansas limited partnership, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.National Multihousing Council, Community Associations Institute, Institu

741 F.Supp.2d 289 (2010) Vernice HEADEN, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant. Civil Action No. 10-0784 (ESH). United States District Court, District of Columbia. October 5, 2010. *291 Vernice Headen, Southern Pines, NC, pro se. Gerard Joseph Stief, WMATA Office of the General Counsel, Wa

649 F.Supp.2d 424 (2009) Peter JAMES, Plaintiff v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant. Civil No. PJM 08-2821. United States District Court, D. Maryland. August 11, 2009. *425 Peter James, Germantown, MD, pro se. Gerard J. Stief, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, DC, for Defe

KELLY, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Plaintiffs made an unusual decision in this case.1 They challenged only the constitutional amendment concerning same-gender marriage. Okla. Const, art. II, § 35. They ignored the earlier-enacted statutory provisions which define and only recognize marriage as between persons of opposit

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge Plaintiff Donald Tapp had been an at-will employee of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ("WMATA" or "Defendant") for approximately 25 years as of February 3, 2015, when he was terminated *387from his position as the Superintendent of the Montgomery Bus Division for allegedly v

MEMORANDUM OPINION EMMET G. SULLIVAN, District Judge. Plaintiff Stephen McMillan, proceeding pro se, brings this action against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”), alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 et seq. (“Title

GANTS, C.J. **517 Rule 36 of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, 422 Mass. 1503 (1996) ( rule 36 ), provides that, if a criminal defendant is not

KELLY, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur with the court’s result that Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the provisions at issue,1 that the Salt Lake County Clerk, Governor, and Attorney General were proper Defendants, and that the appeal may proceed despite the absence of the Salt Lake County Clerk. I disagree w

MEMORANDUM CATHERINE C. BLAKE, District Judge. Plaintiff DeAngela Winston (“Ms. Winston”) has brought this action, on behalf of herself and a similarly situated class of plaintiffs (collectively, “the plaintiffs”), *633against defendant Stewart Title Guaranty Company (“Stewart”). The complaint alleges that Stewart overcharged her and oth

John W. Utton, Utton & Kery, P.A., Santa Fe, New Mexico, filed an answer brief and a supplemental brief on behalf of Santa Fe County. Marcos D. Martinez, Santa Fe, New Mexico, filed an answer brief and a supplemental brief on behalf of the City of Santa Fe. Larry C. White, Santa Fe, New Mexico, filed a response brief and a supplemental brief on behalf of the Rio de Tes

John W. Utton, Utton & Kery, P.A., Santa Fe, New Mexico, filed an answer brief and a supplemental brief on behalf of Santa Fe County. Marcos D. Martinez, Santa Fe, New Mexico, filed an answer brief and a supplemental brief on behalf of the City of Santa Fe. Larry C. White, Santa Fe, New Mexico, filed a response brief and a supplemental brief on behalf of the Rio de Tesuque Association, Inc. Scott B. McEl

FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 6, 2017 Elisabeth A. Shumaker

FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 9, 2018 Elisabeth A. Shumaker FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Cl

STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. This case involves the single issue of whether plaintiff, Center for Legal Advocacy (“CLA”), is entitled, under the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act (“PAMII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 10801-10851, to peer review and quality assurance records it seeks in connection with its investigation into the suicides and attempted suicide of m

106 F.3d 325 65 USLW 2543, 97 CJ C.A.R. 196 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Timothy James McVEIGH; Terry Lynn Nichols, Defendants-Appellees.National Victims Center; Mothers Against Drunk Driving;The National Victims' Constitutional Amendment Network;Justice For Surviving Victims, Inc.; Concerns Of PoliceSurvivors, Inc.; Citizens For Law and Order, Inc.;Criminal Justice Leg

GORSUCH, Circuit Judge, joined by TACHA, KELLY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc. Respectfully, I believe we should have reheard this case for at least three reasons. First, by applying the Lemon test to a Ten Commandments display after Van Orden, the panel’s analysis conflicts with the views of several of our sister ci

23 B.R. 289 (1982) In re Walter J. PARENTEAU and Lillian Parenteau, Debtors-Appellees. Bankruptcy No. 82-9005. United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit. September 21, 1982. *290 William S. Gannon, Wadleigh, Storr, Peters, Dunn & Kohls, Manchester, N.H., for appellant. Gerard O. Bergevin, Manchester, N.H.,