Cases

At bottom, the case involves an employer that met its statutory obligations and an employee who did not meet his employment *861obligations. The employer is entitled to summary judgment. A. The Summary Judgment Record The facts are shown by the parties' summary judgment evidence. The summary judgment evidence includes

MEMORANDUM & OPINION PAMELA K. CHEN, District Judge: Plaintiff Merlene Bacchus, a former school aide in the New York City public school system, brings this action against the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”), District Council 37 and its affiliate, the Board of Education Employees Local 372 (collectively “Union Defendants” or “Union”), and Renee Pepper (“Pepper”), assistant prin

STRAUB, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part, concurring in part: In finding that Matson has failed to state a viable claim of infringement of her privacy rights, the majority today gives the government substantial reign to publicly disseminate a person’s intimate medical information without any justification. While it is of course not the case that every bit of medical information is

MEMORANDUM OPINION KEVIN R. HUENNEKENS, Bankruptcy Judge. Before the Court are several separate motions1 filed by the Defendants to dis*772miss this adversary proceeding pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (“Rule 12(b)(6)”), as made applicable to this proceeding by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy

*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER *** Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAP-XX-XXXXXXX 04-JUN-2024 07:56 AM

MEMORANDUM OPINION SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BERYL A. HOWELL, District Judge. The plaintiff Paul Bederson, who is the son and personal representative of the estate of Robert Bederson, now deceased, brought this medical malpractice action against the United States (“government defendant”), pursuant to the Federal Tort

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 18-034C (Filed January 31, 2020) (Reissued Following Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal: June 10, 2020) 1 HEALTHESTATE, LLC, Keywords: Motion to Dismiss, RCFC 12(b)(1), Plaintiff,

14 Kan. App. 2d 632 (1990) 798 P.2d 488 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. GILBERT MATSON, Appellant. No. 63,870 Court of Appeals of Kansas. Opinion filed August 31, 1990. Reid T. Nelson, assistant appellate defender, and Jessica R. Kunen, chief appellate defender, for appellant. Timothy J. Chambers, county attorney, an

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 18-034 (Filed: January 31, 2020) HEALTHESTATE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, and, ASM RESEARCH, LLC,

ED CARNES, Chief Judge: The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act prohibits states from imposing a tax "that discriminates against a rail carrier." 49 U.S.C. § 11501 (b)(4). The question before us is whether Alabama's tax scheme, which imposes

ED CARNES, Chief Judge: We grant the State of Alabama's petition for rehearing in the nature of a request for clarification and extension of opinion and issue this opinion with modest revisions as a substitute for the one we issued initially. See CSX Transp., Inc. v. Ala. Dep't of Revenue ,

10/23/2017 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 16, 2017 Session CRAIG ROBERT NUNN v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 10-1583-IV Russell T. Perkins, Chancellor

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This case involves injuries Plaintiff Donna Moore (“Plaintiff or Moore”) allegedly sustained to her shoulder and cervical spine when employed as a steward aboard a government owned freighter, the CAPE HORN, on December 30, 2008. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 6.

794 F.Supp.2d 935 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff v. State of ARKANSAS; Mike Beebe, Governor of the State of Arkansas, in his official capacity only; John M. Selig, Director of the Arkansas Department of Human Services, in his official capacity only; James C. Green, Ph.D., Director of the Arkansas Division of Developmental Disabilities Services, in his official capacity only; and Calvin Price, Superintendent of the Conway Human Develop

762 F.Supp.2d 849 (2010) UNITED STATES of America v. Paul HARDY. Criminal Action No. 94-381. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. November 24, 2010. *850 Herbert Victor Larson, Jr., New Orleans, LA, Marilyn Michele Fournet, Baton Rouge, LA, Denise M. LeBoeuf, Capital Post-Conviction Project of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA,

618 F.Supp. 278 (1985) Eugene C. MATSON, Plaintiff, v. CARGILL, INC., Defendant. Civ. No. 4-84-516. United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Fourth Division. September 17, 1985. *279 Michael H. Hennen, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff. Roy A. Ginsburg, Dorsey & Whitney, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Anmarie Matson Wilson v. Civil No. 19-cv-511-LM Opinion No. 2020 DNH 065 Andrew Saul1, Commissioner, U.S. Social Security Administration O R D E R Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Anmarie Matson Wilson seeks judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Sec

167 P.3d 292 (2007) The SIERRA CLUB, a California non-profit corporation registered to do business in the State of Hawai`i; Maui Tomorrow, Inc., a Hawai`i non-profit corporation; and the Kahului Harbor Coalition, an unincorporated association, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. The DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION of the State of Hawai`i; Barry Fukunaga, in his capacity as Director of the Department of Transportation of the State of Hawai`i; Michael Formby in

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER LAWRENCE E. KAHN, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION In this employment action, Plaintiff, Sergeant Marie Rother (“Plaintiff’), brings a number of claims arising out of her treatment by supervisors and co-workers while she was employed by Defendant the NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”). See generally Dkt. No

OPINION OF THE COURT MANSMANN, Circuit Judge. In this Title VII matter, we must determine whether the Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway violated that statute when it made race a factor in selecting which of two equally qualified employees to lay off. Specifically, we must decide whether Title VII permits an employer with a racially bal-*1550</