Cases

TEXTO COMPLETO DE LA SENTENCIA Habiendo sido consolidados los recursos de epígrafe, a continuación procedemos a disponer de los mismos. En ambos recursos, las partes que recurren solicitan la revocación de la resolución dictada por el Departamento de Asuntos del Consumidor, en adelante el DACO, el 31 de octubre de 2005 y notificada a las partes el 2 de noviembre siguiente. Mediante dicha resolución,

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. On April 21, 2011, the Plaintiff Carmen Robles (the “Plaintiff’) commenced this lawsuit against her former employer, Cox and Company, Inc. (the “Defendant”), alleging that, by terminating her employment, the Defendant engaged in unlawful age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.; <

154 F.Supp.2d 795 (2001) Carmen ROBLES, Plaintiff, v. COX & COMPANY, INC., Defendant. No. 99 CIV. 1075(CBM). United States District Court, S.D. New York. July 31, 2001. *796 *797 *798 *799

483 F.3d 913 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Carmen Denise HEREDIA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 03-10585. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted December 12, 2006. Filed April 2, 2007. Amended April 30, 2007. Wanda K. Day, Tuc

481 F.3d 1188 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Carmen Denise HEREDIA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 03-10585. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted December 12, 2006. Filed April 2, 2007. Wanda K. Day, Tucson, AZ; Jeffrey T. Green, Eric A. Shumsky, Eam

ORDER CARMEN CONSUELO CEREZO, United States District Judge Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint filed by the United States of America, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and FBI Agent John Doe on September 24, 2014 (D.E. 34) and the opposition filed by plaintiff José Ruiz-Rivera on November 3, 2014 (D.E. 37).1 At the outset, we must clarify (1) that the FBI

ACCEPTED 04-14-00527-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

ACCEPTED 04-14-00527-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 1/9/2015 11:23:08 AM

OPINION OF THE COURT Armando Montano, J. The People’s motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d) for leave to reargue this court’s decision and order dated September 5, 2014 is granted. Upon reargument, this court adheres to its prior decision and order. By decision and order dated September 5, 2014, this court granted, inter alia, defendant’s motion for a Huntley hearing.<

Case Number: 04-96-00226-CV 12/17/1998 Case stored in record room 12/17/1998 Notice sent to Court of Appeals 11/12/1998 Petition for Review disposed proceeding denied 11/12/1998 Petition for Review disposed proceeding denied 11/04/1998 Response to Petition for Review waived 10/29/1998 M/E/T to file response disposed of Granted 10/23/1998 Response to Petition for Review filed 10/13/1998 Notice requesting filing fee 10/13/1998 Motion for Extension of Time filed 09/14/1998 Supreme Court of Texas

EN EL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE PUERTO RICO In re: 2023 TSPR 9 Aprobación de Cambio de Estatus Inactivo de octubre de 2020 a 211 DPR ___ diciembre de 2022 Número del Caso: EM-2023-1 Fecha: 31 de enero de 2023 Materia: Aprobación de Cambio de Estatus Inactivo de octubre de 2020 a diciembre de 2022. Este documento está sujeto a los cambios y correcciones del proceso de compilación y pub

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 19-1474 MARÍA S. DÍAZ-BÁEZ; VÍCTOR A. BURGOS-TORRES; THELMA L. PÉREZ- GUZMÁN; MARISOL DOMÍNGUEZ-RIVERA; HÉCTOR J. ALBELO-CARTAGENA; MÓNICA MOLINA-SALAS; RAMÓN L. RIVERA-GASCOT; SYLVIA ALVARADO- HERNÁNDEZ; PEDRO R. MARTÍNEZ-AGOSTO; CARMEN E. MEDINA-ADORNO; PEDRO I. CARTAGENA-RODRÍGUEZ; EDUARDO BARREIRO-DIAZ; MELIXA MARRERO-GONZÁLEZ; MERCEDES LAMBERTY-ROMÁN; CARLOS A. AQUINO- VALENTÍN; DEBBIE

OPINION AND ORDER GARCÍA-GREGORY, District Judge. Before the Court is co-defendants’1 Motion For Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 86) filed on July 8, 2002.2 For *197the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that summary judgment is warranted, thus, GRANTS the moti

LYNCH, Circuit Judge. This is the latest in a series of cases which involve the tension between a newly elected administration’s ability to reorganize government, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, two constitutional limitations — the First Amendment’s prohibitions against discriminating against government *6

EN EL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE PUERTO RICO In re: Aprobación de Cambio de Estatus 2020 TSPR 145 Inactivo de marzo 2019 a agosto 2020 205 DPR _____ Número del Caso: EM-2020-18 Fecha: 30 de noviembre de 2020 Materia: Resolución del Tribunal. Este documento constituye un documento oficial del Tribunal Supremo que está sujeto a los cambios y correcciones del proceso de compilación y public

611 F.Supp.2d 99 (2009) In re: CARIBBEAN PETROLEUM, LP., et al., Debtors. Civil No. 04-1964 (FAB). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. April 29, 2009. *102 Eduardo A. Vera-Ramirez, Eileen Landron-Guardiola, Luis A. Alvarado-Hernandez, Landron & Vera LLP, Guaynabo, PR, Isabel Garces-Castro, Linda S. Rodriguez-Gardeslen, Manu

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3134 ___________________________ Craig Lyons, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated; Justin Anderson, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated; Tommy Applegate, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated; Brandon Etzkorn, I

*17Opinión concurrente en parte y disidente en parte emitida por la Juez Asociada Señora Naveira de Rodón. Disentimos de la opinión del Tribunal por considerar que el Art. 1802 del Código Civil, 31 L.P.R.A. see. 5141, no cobija la reclamación por sufrimientos y angustias menta-les de la novia y los padres de un obrero que al

CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellants appeal from the dismissal of their civil rights complaint against two unnamed officers of the Police Department of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and their supervisors. We hold that the district court erred in allowing defendant-appellees’ motion for summary judgment before discovery was reasonably complete, as well as in den

FAGG, Circuit Judge. Representatives of a class of Minneapolis school children brought this action in Minnesota state court against the state, state officials, and the Metropolitan Council, an administrative agency that coordinates planning and development in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. The lawsuit alleges the Minneapolis public schools are segregated on the basis of race and