Cases

*548Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

ORDER ORLANDO L. GARCIA, District Judge, JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge, XAVIER RODRIGUEZ, District Judge. On this date, the Court considered Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (docket no. *614995). Defendants raise two arguments in their motion: (1) the claims relating to the 2011 plans are moot and the Court should reconsider its prior rulings to the c

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge, dissenting: When a three-judge court is forced into the unwanted position of fashioning interim redistricting plans, the focus should be on practicality, balance, and moderation, albeit with unbending adherence to the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) and the Constitution. The judges in the majority, with the purest of intentions, have instead produced a runaway plan that imposes an extrem

A petition for certification of the judgment in A-004011-16 having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same; It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied, with costs.

Motion of the Solicitor General for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, and for divided argument granted. The time is to be divided as follows: 30 minutes for appellants, 30 minutes for appellees, and 10 minutes for the Solicitor General as am-icus curiae. Motion of appellees Wendy Davis, et al. for divided argument denied.

C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1013.] Motion of petitioners to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.

Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.

Cite as: 565 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 Per Curiam NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash- ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the

The applications for stay, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, are granted, and it is ordered that the orders issued by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on November 23, 2011, in case Nos. 5:11-CV-360, and 5:11-CV-788, and the order of November 26, 2011, in case No. 5:11-CV-360, are hereby stayed pending further order of the Court. In addition, the applications for stay are treated as jurisdiction

(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 565 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 Per Curiam NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash- ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be ma

Opinion of the Court by GINOZA, J. Defendant-Appellant Mahealani Perez-Wendt (Perez-Wendt), pro se, appeals from an order by the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (circuit court)1 denying Perez-Wendt’s motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Plaintiff-Appellee Warren C.R. Perry (Perry) (Order Denying Motion To Dismiss). On appeal, Perez-Wendt conten

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals 30329 08-FEB-2013 08:18 AM

ORDER Fred Perry applied to the Milwaukee Housing Authority for housing benefits under section 8 of the Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f. The Housing Authority denied his application because Perry had been arrested twice for domestic battery. After an informal review at which Perry had the opportunity to explain why his application should not have been denied, the hearing officer upheld the Housing Authority’s decisión. Perry then filed

MORRIS, Judge: Juan M. Perez, the husband, appeals a nonfinal support order in dissolution of marriage proceedings between him and the wife, Oriana M. Pérez. We reverse the order because it failed to differentiate between child support arid alimony. The parties married in 1999 and had twin sons in 2'005. The wife'filed a petition for dissolution of ma

ORDER JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge, ORLANDO L. GARCIA, and XAVIER RODRIGUEZ, District Judges. After careful deliberation, the Court grants the parties’ request to amend their pleadings and denies Defendants’’ motion to dismiss the -2011 claims- as moot. All legal challenges and requests for injunctive, declaratory and equitable relief relating to .the 2011 and 2013 enacted plans will remain in this Court. T

ORDER ORLANDO L. GARCIA, District Judge. Pending before the Court is the LULAC Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Motion to Stay Implementation of Interim Congressional Redistricting Plan C235 (Dkt. # 716). After due consideration, the Court finds that the motion should be DENIED. On February 28, 2012, the Court issued Plan C235 as the interim plan for the districts used to elect members to the Un

652 F.Supp.2d 901 (2009) Carmina PEREZ, Plaintiff, v. Ricky L. WADE, et al., Defendants. No. 08-1230 B. United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division. August 19, 2009. *903 Matthew E. Wright, Perry A. Craft, Craft & Sheppard, PLC, Brentwood, TN, for Plaintiff. James D. Foster, State Attorney General's

PERRY, Chief Judge. Vincent R. Perez appeals from the district court’s order affirming the magistrate’s award of attorney fees to Leslie G. Perez in the amount of $10,460. Vincent also appeals from the district court’s order affirming the magistrate’s second award of attorney fees and costs to Leslie in the amount of $5,753.16. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Vincent and L

179 P.3d 346 (2008) STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Mariano PEREZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 33003, 33004. Court of Appeals of Idaho. February 20, 2008. *347 Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Justin M. Curtis argued. Hon

PER CURIAM. Following the issuance of the Third District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Perez v. State, 118 So.3d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), and upon the State’s motion, the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance: HOW SHOULD MANIFEST INJUSTICE BE DEFINED FOR PURPOSES OF A CLAIM OF NEWLY D