Cases

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. All too often both litigants and judges disregard them first duty in every suit: to determine the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction. In this litigation, by contrast, the defendants and judge were alert to jurisdiction and endeavored to apply the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Unfortunately, the judge waited until two years after the case b

536 U.S. 452 (2002) UTAH et al. v. EVANS, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL. No. 01-714. United States Supreme Court. Argued March 27, 2002. Decided June 20, 2002. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH *453 *454 *455

876 N.E.2d 361 (2007) The ESTATE OF Raymond LEE, By and Through co-personal representatives Juliann L. McGARRAH and Dinah L. Merritt, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. LEE & URBAHNS COMPANY, an Indiana general partnership, and John B. Urbahns, individually and in his capacity as general partner in Lee & Urbahns, Allison Run II, an Indiana general partnership, Allison *362 Run III, an Indiana general partnership,

182 F.Supp.2d 1165 (2001) State of UTAH; Michael O. Leavitt, Governor; Olene S. Walker, Lieutenant Governor; Mark L. Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General; L. Alma Mansell, President of the Utah Senate; Martin R. Stephens, Speaker of the Utah House; Mike Dmitrich, Utah Senate Minority Leader; Ralph Becker, Utah House Minority Leader; Orrin G. Hatch, United States Senator; Robert F. Bennett, United States Senator; James V. Hansen, Member of Congress; Christoph

945 P.2d 492 (1997) 1997 OK 97 Raymond Lloyd EVANS, a minor, By and Through his mother and next of friend, Lola EVANS, Appellant, v. OAKS MISSION PUBLIC SCHOOL, and Vince Osburn, D. Holman, and Nick Durant, Appellees. No. 87488. Supreme Court of Oklahoma. July 8, 1997. Betty Pitts-Cartwright, Jay, for Appellant. J. Douglas Mann, C. Bre

143 F.Supp.2d 1290 (2001) State of UTAH; Michael O. Leavitt, Governor; Olene S. Walker, Lieutenant Governor; Mark L. Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General; L. Alma Mansell, President of the Utah Senate; Martin R. Stephens, Speaker of the Utah House; Mike Dmitrich, Utah Senate Minority Leader; Ralph Becker, Utah House Minority Leader; Orrin G. Hatch, United States Senator; Robert F. Bennett, United States Senator; James V. Hansen, Member of Congress; Christoph

PER CURIAM: Before this court is the Commonwealth of Virginia’s motion to vacate a stay of execution entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. We reverse the judgment of the district court and vacate the stay of execution. I. The facts surrounding the offense have been set forth in our prior o

Appeal from Circuit Court, Harrison County; J. Ruble Griffin, Judge. Reversed and remanded to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. PATTERSON and INZER, P. J., and SMITH, SUGG, WALKER and BROOM, JJ., concur.

26 F.Supp.2d 615 (1998) Raymond LEE, Plaintiff, v. Thomas A. COUGHLIN, III, Commissioner, James Mahoney, Hearing Officer, Defendants. No. 93 CIV. 8417(SS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. October 26, 1998. *616 David C. Leven, Robert Selcov, Prisoners' Legal Services of New York, Poughkeepsie, NY, Daniel L. Greenberg

MICHAEL E. KIRBY, Judge. All of these cases involve physicians who had placed a deposit of $125,000.00 with the Louisiana Patients’ Compensation Fund (“PCF”) as proof of financial responsibility. By doing so they were classified as “self-insured” under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act for the first $100,000.00 of potential liability to a claimant. In three of the cases,1 all involving Dr. He

Opinion issued October 15, 2013 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-12-00311-CV ——————————— RAYMOND MICHAEL LEE, Appellant V. HARRIS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT,

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; Joe N. Pigott, Judge. AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON and ANDERSON, JJ., concur. PITTMAN, J., not participating.

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DAVID WAYNE EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. F. PERKINS COMPANY, a division of Standex International Corporation; DIVERSIFIED CONVERTERS, INCORPORATED; E. I. No. 98-1002 DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees, and MEDICAL COLLEGE OF VIRGINIA HOSPITALS AUTHORITY, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAYMOND GARCIA, as a member, No. 19-16863 and on behalf of Clark County Public Employees Association, D.C. Nos. Plaintiff-Appellee, 2:17-cv-01340- APG-NJK and 2:17-cv-02137- APG-NJK CHERIE MANCINI; FREDERICK GUSTAFSON,

PER CURIAM: Appellant is here seeking reversal of the District Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The central issue raised by this pro se petition is the validity of the arrest and detention of Appellant by Fort Worth, Texas local police officers pursuant to a detainer based upon a Commissioner’s complaint

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 02-3707 RAYMOND JOHNSON and ROBERT JOHNSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEE WATTENBARGER and RUTH WATTENBARGER, Defendants-Appellees. ____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

498 U.S. 927 111 S.Ct. 309 112 L.Ed.2d 295 Wilbert Lee EVANS, petitionerv.Raymond MUNCY, Warden, et al. No. 90-5958. Supreme Court of the United States October 17, 1990 The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to THE CHIEF JUSTIC

BYBEE, Circuit Judge, dissenting: The majority holds that probable cause is required for the warrantless search of the person or home of a pretrial releasee. This is not only an issue of first impression in our circuit, it is an issue of first impression in any federal court. In a case to which no state is a party, the majority casually adopts a rule that carries monumental implications for the pretrial procedu

BYBEE, Circuit Judge, dissenting: The majority holds that probable cause is required for the warrantless search of the person or home of a pretrial releasee even though the releasee agreed to the search as a condition of his pretrial release. The majority reasons that, for Fourth Amendment purposes, we cannot distinguish between persons charged with a crime and those who are not. As the majority writes, “[tjhat

516 A.2d 477 (1986) Randall Lee EVANS, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: August 15, 1986. Decided: October 24, 1986. Raymond J. Hancock, Public Defender's Office, Wilmington, for appellant. Loren C. Meyers and William George, Dept. of Justice, Wilmington, for appellee. Bef