Cases

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS DAVID ALAN EZRA, Senior District Judge. On July 29, 2014, the Court heard a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Roosevelt Irrigation District’s (“RID”) amended complaint. The motion was brought by Defendants Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP (“Kinder Morgan”), Alcoa Inc. (“Alcoa”), Arizona Public Service Company (

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA JAIME A. MOLERA, AN INDIVIDUAL AND QUALIFIED ELECTOR; ARIZONANS FOR GREAT SCHOOLS AND A STRONG ECONOMY, A POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. KATIE HOBBS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ARIZONA SECRETARY OF STATE; INVEST IN EDUCATION (SPONSORED BY AEA AND STAND FOR CHILDREN), A P

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ GENENTECH, INC., Appellant v. HOSPIRA, INC., Appellee UNITED STATES, Intervenor ______________________ 2018-1933 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Pate

OPINION OF THE COURT Rivera, J. In this appeal, arising out of a criminal prosecution for, inter alia, violations of Environmental Conservation Law § 17-0701 (1) (a) and § 71-1933 (4) (a) (i), the primary issue presented, which is one of first impression, is whether the People must prove the culpable mental state “knowingly,” as defined under Penal Law § 15.05 (2), with regard to each and every element of

SABERS, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part). Excessive force claims against law enforcement officers "are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s ‘objective reasonableness’ standard, rather than under [the Fourteenth ’Amendment’s] substantive due process standard.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 388, 109 S.Ct. at 1867, 104 L.Ed.2d at 450. And yet, the jury

87 F.Supp.2d 944 (1998) Richard K. COLEMAN and Bobbie J. Coleman, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. Leroy WATTS and Martha Watts, et al., Defendants. No. Civ. 96-667 TUC ACM. United States District Court, D. Arizona. December 24, 1998. *945 *946 Matthew David Karnas, Michael David Richter, Sieg

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 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

*213AMENDED OPINION3 LINARES, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction....................................................................214 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law...........................................215 I. Background Page....

578 F.Supp. 1424 (1983) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Mark ST. PIERRE, Defendant. Cr. 83-50028-01. United States District Court, D. South Dakota, W.D. September 2, 1983. *1425 Philip Hogen, U.S. Atty., Sioux Falls, S.D., Ted McBride, Asst. U.S. Atty., Rapid City, S.D., for plaintiff. James Leach, Rapid City, S.D.

*464WOMACK, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which McCORMICK, P.J., and KELLER, HOLLAND, and KEASLER, JJ., joined, and in Parts I and II of which PRICE, J., joined. The issue in this case is whether a culpable mental state is required in an ordinance, which regulates adult businesses, and that is silent about whether a

17 Wn. App. 231 (1977) 562 P.2d 659 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. WILLY D. SMITH, Appellant. No. 4625-1. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One. March 28, 1977. *232 Murray B. Guterson, for appellant. Christopher T. Bayley, Prosecuting Attorney, and Ralph Maimon,

Per Curiam. Plaintiff’s assignments of error relating to the exclusion and admission of evidence are not in accordance with the rules of this Court. Assignments of error “should clearly present the error relied on without the necessity of going beyond the 'assignment itself to learn what the question is.” 1 Strong: N. C. Index, Appeal and Error, s. 19, Footnote 203; Balint v. Grayson, 256 N.C. 490, 124 S.E. 2d 364. Howev

OPINION OF THE COURT SEITZ, Circuit Judge. Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury on a one-count indictment brought under 18 U.S.C. § 111. 1 The indictment charged that defendant did “knowingly, unlawfully and wilfully, forcibly assault, resi

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Circuit Judge. White Fuel Corporation was convicted after a jury-waived trial of violating Section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. § 407 [the Refuse Act]. 1 White Fuel operates a tank farm abutting a small cove off the Reserved Channel, part of Boston harbor. Both the cove and the

*578Munson, J. —Herman Hartzog appeals a conviction under RCW 69.50.401(c)1 for possession of a controlled substance, an amphetamine. Hartzog was an inmate of the Washington State Penitentiary at the time he was found with the drug and at the time of trial. On May 12, 1977, 7 months prior to Hartzog's trial, the Walla Walla S

7 N.J. 137 (1951) 80 A.2d 617 THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLANT, v. VICTOR LABATO, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued February 19, 1951. Reargued April 2, 1951. Decided May 14, 1951. *141 Mr. Robert Burk Johnson, Assistant County Prosecutor, argued the ca

486 F.2d 1139 158 U.S.App.D.C. 375 UNITED STATES of Americav.Raymond MOORE, Appellant. No. 71-1252. United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit. Argued Sept. 10, 1971.Decided May 14, 1973.Certiorari Denied Oct. 23, 1973.See 94 S.Ct. 298 Patricia Wald, Wa