Cases

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued January 16, 2025 Decided June 9, 2026 No. 23-5237 FARAH NAZ, APPELLANT v. CHRIS WRIGHT, SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, APPELLEE Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

FILED Jul 25 2023, 9:06 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals

SILER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which NATHANIEL R. JONES, J., joined. GILMAN, J. (pp. 572-74), delivered a separate concurring opinion. OPINION SILER, Circuit Judge. Defendant Chris Wright was convicted on one count of arson in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment on the ground that government

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘o

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF No. 19-15072 DELAWARE; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; STATE OF MARYLAND; D.C. No. STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF 4:17-cv-05783- ILLINOIS; STATE OF WASHINGTON; HSG STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF HAWAII, Plai

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 20a0185p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LAMAR WRIGHT, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ │

OPINION MOTZ, Senior District Judge: Chris Kohler appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant Flava Enterprises Inc. (“Flava”), on Kohler’s claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Kohler appeals only the district court’s conclusion that a dressing room bench longer than forty-eight inches complies wit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHRIS WRIGHT, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 22-1378 (RC) : v. : Re Document Nos.: 48, 52 : U.S.

BYE, Circuit Judge. Shirley Phelps-Roper brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the State of Missouri after Missouri passed funeral protest laws Mo.Rev.Stat. § 578.501 and Mo.Rev.Stat. § 578.502. Following this court’s decision in Phelps-Roper v. Nixon, 545 F.3d 685 (8th Cir.2008), the district court enter

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION HON. RALPH B. KIRSCHER, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Montana At Butte in said District this 13th day of February, 2015. The Debtor’s Motion (Document No. 19) to avoid judicial liens of Mary Satterfield (“Satterfield”) under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A) is pending in this Chapter 13 case. Satterfield filed objections on the grounds:

FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMERICAN FEDERATION OF No. 25-3293 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO; D.C. No. 3:25-cv-03698-SI AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, Northern District

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 11, 2007 Session CHRIS CAGLE v. MARK J. HYBNER, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 04-1248-II Carol L. McCoy, Chancellor No. M2006-02073-COA-R3-CV - Filed July 3, 2008 The plaintiff, a songwriter and recording artist, filed this action agains

665 F.3d 560 (2012) UNITED STATES of America v. Christopher G. WRIGHT, Appellant (No. 09-3467) Ravinder S. Chawla, Appellant (No. 09-3731) Andrew Teitelman. Appellant (No. 09-3965). Nos. 09-3467, 09-3731, 09-3965. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued September 21, 2011. Opinion filed: January 4, 2012.

*1328OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court on Defendant Wright Medical Technology, Inc. ’s (“Defendant” or “Wright Medical”)1 Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the Alternative, Motion for-New Trial and to Amend the Judgment [241] (“Ren

*1314 OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR., District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On February 27, 2012, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “Panel”) ordered the centralization-of five actions pending in five districts, involving alleged defects in Wright Medical Technology Inc.’s Conse

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-17-00131-CV OZO CAPITAL, INC., BILTMORE APPELLANTS FUNDING II, LLC, AND DFI-OTH, LLC V. VANCE SYPHERS AND CHRIS APPELLEES EDENS ---------- FROM THE 48TH DISTRI

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1338 Doc: 70 Filed: 09/08/2025 Pg: 1 of 41 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1248 STATE OF MARYLAND; STATE OF MINNESOTA; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; STATE OF DELAWARE; STATE

ORDER The appellee’s petition for rehearing is GRANTED. The opinion filed April 3, 1992 is WITHDRAWN. EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: In our prior opinion, 961 F.2d 138, (9th Cir.1992) which has been withdrawn, this court held that the six year delay between Shell’s indictment and arrest did not violate his Sixth Amendment r

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1248 Doc: 98 Filed: 09/08/2025 Pg: 1 of 41 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1248 STATE OF MARYLAND; STATE OF MINNESOTA; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; STATE OF DELAWARE; STATE

EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge. The government appeals from an order dismissing an indictment charging James Ray Shell with one count of passport falsification, 18 U.S.C. § 1542. The district court held that the indictment was not found within the ten-year limitation period, and that the preindictment delay violated Shell’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Although we d