Cases

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-2523 BRIAN HOPE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COMMISSIONER OF INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-2523 BRIAN HOPE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COMMISSIONER OF INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-2523 BRIAN HOPE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COMMISSIONER OF INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District

28 P.3d 904 (2001) STATE of Alaska, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES, Karen Perdue, Commissioner, Appellant, v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ALASKA, INC., Jan Whitefield, M.D., and Susan Lemagie, M.D., Appellees. No. S-9109. Supreme Court of Alaska. July 27, 2001. *905 Lisa M. Kirsch, Assistant Attorney General, and Bruce M. B

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 23-3166 PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES; LEAGUE OF WOMAN VOTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA; PHILADELPHIANS ORGANIZED TO WITNESS EMPOWER AND REBUILD; COMMON CAUSE PENNSYLVANIA; BLACK POLITICAL EMPOWERMENT PROJECT; MAKE THE ROAD PENNSYLVANIA; BARRY M. SEASTEAD; MARLENE G. GUTIERREZ; AYNNE MARGARET PLEBAN POLINSKI; JOEL BENCAN; L

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge: *363Three business groups1 filed suits challenging the "Fiduciary Rule" promulgated by the Department of Labor (DOL) in April 2016. The Fiduciary Rule is a package of seven different rules that broadly reinterpret the term "investment advice fiduciary" and redefine exemptions to prov

Fay, Judge: Respondent determined Federal income tax and excise tax deficiencies as follows: Petitioners Year in issue Income tax Excise tax deficiency deficiency Judge and Mrs. Donald J. Porter 1980 $924.00 $90.00 Judge and Mrs. Arlin M. Adams 1980 687.69 76.80

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 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

SPATT, District Judge. This is an action brought under Section Two of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, *20552 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq ("VRA"). The plaintiffs, Hispanic residents of the Town of Islip (the "Town" or "Islip

ACCEPTED 03-15-00113-CV 5110259 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Joan B. Gottschall, United States District Judge The plaintiffs in this action are six United States citizens who are former residents of Illinois and who now reside in Puerto Rico, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands, plus two organizations that promote voting rights in United States territories. The defendants are comprised of state and federal voting-related commissions and group

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-3540 ___________________________ Allen T. Bloodworth, II lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, through its members, doing business as Kan

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, United States District Court Now before the Court is the motion of the City and County of San Francisco (“the City”) to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiff California-Nevada Annual Conference of the Methodist Church (“the Conference”), in which the Conference alleges the following three

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA William Penn School District; : Panther Valley School District; : The School District of Lancaster; : Greater Johnstown School District; : Wilkes-Barre Area School District; : Shenandoah Valley School District; : Jamella and Bryant Miller, parents of : K.M., a minor; Sheila Armstrong, : parent of S.A., minor; Tracey Hughes, : parent of P.M.H., minor; Pennsylvania : Association of R

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 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

GERBER, Judge: This is an action for declaratory judgment pursuant to section 7428.1 By a final adverse ruling dated March 21, 1984, respondent determined that petitioner is neither organized nor operated exclusively for exempt purposes within the meaning of section 501(c)(3). Petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this Court and challenges respondent’

Black, J. (concurring). Mr. Justice Holmes, writing at the time in another politically momentous “great case” (Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 US 197 [24 S Ct 436, 48 L ed 679]), has provided an appropriate introduction to this consequential showdown between an emergency-tagged statute and a restrictive provision of our Constitution. We refer to this writing of more than a half century ago (pp

494 F.Supp.2d 307 (2007) Joseph P. McCOOL, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 06-3393. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. June 27, 2007. *308 *309 Thomas Bruno, II, Abramson & Denenberg, PC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff. Gregory

MEMORANDUM BUCKWALTER, Senior District Judge. Currently pending before the Court is the Motion of Defendants Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, Montgomery County Office of Children and Youth, and County of Montgomery (collectively hereinafter “the County Defendants” or “Defendants”)1 to Dismiss Counts V through VIII of Plaintiff KS.S.’s Complaint.

29 A.3d 762 (2011) CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (KRIEBEL). Appeal of Patricia Kriebel. No. 49 EAP 2010. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued March 9, 2011. Decided October 19, 2011. *764 Michael Gerald Dryden, Willig, Williams & Davidson, Philadelphia, for Patricia Kriebel.