Cases

Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge Plaintiff Press and Journal, Inc. ("plaintiff") filed this action alleging First Amendment violations by defendant Borough of Middletown (the "Borough"). The Borough moved to dismiss plaintiff's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). (Doc. 12). We will deny the Borough's motion to the extent it is grounded in Rule 12(b)(6). I. Factual Background &

945 A.2d 59 (2008) 399 N.J. Super. 486 MOUNTAIN HILL, L.L.C., a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWNSHIP OF MIDDLETOWN, Peter Carton, Esq., Joan Smith, Rose-Marie Peters, Patrick Parkinson, James Hinckley, Judith Stanley and Clifford Raich, Defendants-Respondents. No. A-1328-05T3 Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

401 F.Supp. 1242 (1975) Jo-Ann BYKOFSKY, on her own behalf and on the behalf of her son, a minor, Shaw Bykofsky, as his guardian, Plaintiffs, v. The BOROUGH OF MIDDLETOWN et al., Defendants. Civ. No. 75-74. United States District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania. August 22, 1975. *1243 *1244

OPINION & ORDER KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge: Plaintiff Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. (“Tartikov”) is the owner of an approximately Í 00-acre parcel of land (the “Subject Property”) located within the Village of Pomona (the “Village”), upon which it seeks to build a rabbinical college that, in addition to providing all of the facilities neces

OPINION & ORDER KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge: Plaintiffs bring challenges to certain zoning and environmental ordinances enacted by Defendant Village of Pomona (the “Village”), alleging they are unlawful under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Aet of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42

OPINION AND ORDER KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge. “This case presents the familiar conflict between the legal principle of non-discrimination and the political principle of not-in-my-backyard.” New Directions Treatment Servs. v. City of Reading, 490 F.3d 293, 295 (3d Cir.2007). Plaintiffs challenge certain zoning and environmental ordinances enacted by Defendant Village of Pomona, assert

OPINION AND ORDER KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge. Plaintiff Rockland Exposition, Inc. (“Plaintiff’ or “REI”) brings this action against Defendants Alliance of Automotive Service Providers of New Jersey (“AASP”), Tom Elder, Thomas Greco, Thomas Greco Publishing, Inc., and Glenn Villacari (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges federal claims for copyright protection, trademark infringe

*490OUTLINE OP OPINION I Outline of Major Issues 497 II “Pair Share” and “Region” — Preliminary Considerations 498 III Madison — Its Growth and Development 500 IV The Zoning Ordinances 503 V “Least Cost” versus “Law and Moderate Income” Housing, etc. ■ 510 VI Incapacity of 1973 Ordinan

880 A.2d 737 (2005) Gerry HARTMAN, John Lapinski, Robert Roycroft and Debbie Roycroft v. CITY OF ALLENTOWN and City of Harrisburg, Appeal of City of Allentown. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Argued April 7, 2005. Decided August 11, 2005. *739 Thomas B. Schmidt, III, Harrisburg, for appellant, City of Allentown. Randal

Chief Justice RABNER, concurring. By order dated September 8, 2010, the Presiding Judge for Administration of the Appellate Division, the Honorable Edwin H. Stern, was temporarily assigned to the Supreme Court until further order. As a result, he participated in the resolution of this matter and authored the majority opinion. Article VI, Section II, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constituti

569 F.Supp. 990 (1983) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., and American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Defendants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 82-0192. Misc. No. 82-0025 (PI). United States District Court, District of Columbia. April 20, 1983.<

238 Md. 549 (1965) 210 A.2d 325 MacDONALD, ET AL. v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY AND ISLE OF THYE LAND COMPANY [No. 427, September Term, 1964.] Court of Appeals of Maryland. Decided May 5, 1965. Dissenting Opinion filed May 25, 1965. *551 The cause was argued b

9 PETTIPAUG, LLC, ET AL. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE BOROUGH OF FENWICK (SC 20838) Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins, Ecker, Alexander and Dannehy, Js. Syllabus The plaintiffs, which owned real property in the borough of Fenwick, appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant planning and zoning commission approving certain ame

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

February 16, 2021 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3 CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT ANGELA BORELLI, ADMINISTRATRIX (ESTATE OF BRANDON GIORDANO) v. ANTHONY RENALDI ET AL.

Smith, Chief Circuit Judge *592I. Introduction Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the Pennsylvania General Assembly exceeded its authority under the United States Constitution when it enacted a congressional redistricting plan that was intended to favor candidates from the Republican Party. Amended Complaint, ECF No.

693 F.Supp.2d 442 (2010) Lerato Nomvuyo MZAMANE, Plaintiff, v. Oprah WINFREY, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 08-4884. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. March 15, 2010. *460 Timothy McGowan, W. Matthew Reber, Christina M. Rideout, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff

KELLER, P.J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which PRICE, WOMACK, JOHNSON, KEASLER, HERVEY, COCHRAN and ALCALA, JJ., joined. The “improper photography or visual recording” statute makes it a crime to, among other things, photograph or record by electronic means a visual image of another person under certain circumstances.