Cases

ACCEPTED 03-14-00340-CV

ACCEPTED 03-14-00510-CV 4243321 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

(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. Detroit

Filed: June 11, 2001 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1185 (CA-99-425, CA-99-443) Waste Management Holdings, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs - Appellees, versus James S. Gilmore, III, etc., et al., Defendants - Appellants.

Case: 20-1321 Document: 109 Page: 1 Filed: 12/08/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF VETERANS' ADVOCATES, INC., PETER CIANCHETTA, MICHAEL REGIS, ANDREW TANGEN, Petitioners v. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent ______________________ 2020-1321

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2025 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

Rehearing en banc granted, August 31, 2005 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT RAWLS R. HAWES,  Plaintiff-Appellant, v.  No. 04-1736 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Easter

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, on its  own behalf and as trustee on behalf of the Lummi Nation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KEITH E. MILNER, Defendant, No. 05-35802 and  D.C. No. CV-01-00809-RBL BRENT C. NICHOLSON; MARY K. NICHOLSON,

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2022 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

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 599 U. S. Part 1 Pages 166–235 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 8, 2023 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 requ

Volume 1 of 2 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT GREENVILLE WOMEN'S CLINIC; CHARLESTON WOMEN'S MEDICAL CLINIC, INCORPORATED; WILLIAM LYNN, MD, on behalf of themselves and their patients seeking abortions, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DOUGLAS E. BRYANT, in his official No. 99-1319 capacity as Commissioner of South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; CHARLES M. CONDON, in his official capacity as Attorney G

SHEPARD, Chief Justice. The question is whether the parents of a patient in a persistent vegetative state may authorize the withdrawal of artificially provided nutrition and hydration from their never-compagent daughter. We hold that they may. ~~ Case History When this litigation began, Sue Ann Lawrance was a forty-two year old woman who was "completely nonverbal, nonambu-latory, requir[in

Summary 6/29/2018 10:04:24 AM Differences exist between documents. New Document: Old Document: 16-402_new 16-402 119 pages (614 KB) 119 pages (614 KB) 6/29/2018 10:04:11 AM 6/29/2018 10:04:10 AM Used to display results. Get started: first change is on page 53. No pages were deleted How to read this report Highlight indicates a change. Deleted indicates deleted content

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017 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