Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION RICHARD J. LEON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court for a second time are plaintiffs Appeal of Magistrate Judge Order Docket No. 180 to the Federal District Judge (“Appeal”) [185], defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs Appeal (“Opp’n”) [186],

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court are plaintiffs Appeal of Magistrate Judge Order Docket No. 180 to the Federal District Judge (“Appeal”) [185], defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs Appeal (“Opp’n”) [186], and plaintiffs Reply to Defendant’s Opposition (“Reply”) [187]. Plaintiff appeals the Magistrate Judge’s order [182] denying

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34Q). Upon consideration of the foregoing; the motion for sanctions, the opposition thereto, and the reply; and the supplemental reply brief, it is ORDERED that

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 25-339 (JDB) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Soon after President Trump issued Executive Order 14158, creating the United

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 25-339 (JDB) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first a

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

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

Appellate Case: 22-1023 Document: 010111040629 Date Filed: 04/30/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 30, 2024

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NATIONAL COUNCIL OF : AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYERS, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 22-3569 (RC) : v. : Re Document Nos.:

Karen Webb v. Giant of Maryland, LLC, No. 12, September Term, 2021. Opinion by Harrell, J. APPEAL AND ERROR – REVIEW – SCOPE AND EXTENT OF REVIEW – JUDGMENT IN GENERAL – IN GENERAL Court of Special Appeals correctly applied a de novo standard when reviewing circuit court’s denial of a motion for judgment filed by Respondent at the close of evidence. In reviewing the circuit court’s decision, the Court conducted the same analysis as the circuit court and reviewed the evidence in a light most fa

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District RITA LYNNE TERPSTRA, ) ) Respondent, ) WD80967 ) v. ) OPINION FILED: January 2, 2019 ) STATE OF MISSOURI,

HOTTEN, J. This appeal concerns the Maryland Department of Agriculture’s (“MDA”) decision to exempt nutrient management plans (“NMPs”)1 from public disclosure in response to a Public Information Act request. An NMP “indicates how essential primary nutrients, that is, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, are to be annually managed on farm fields for crop production and for the protection of water qu

MEMORANDUM OPINION Granting Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss and Denying as Moot Plaintiff’s Motion . for Preliminary Injunction RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Bombardier, Inc., is a Canadian company currently embroiled in Department of Labor administrative proc

OPINION PER CURIAM: For the third time, we are called upon to assess the legality of the President’s efforts to bar over 150 million nationals of six designated countries 1 from entering the United States or being issued immigrant visas that they w

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: The United States1 appeals a preliminary injunction, pending trial, forbidding implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans -and Lawful Permanent Residents program (“DAPA”). Twenty-six states (the “states”2) challenged DAPA under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution;

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: Twenty-six states (the “states”) are challenging the government’s1 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program (“DAPA”) as violative of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. The district court determined that the states are likely to succeed on their, procedural APA claim, so it tem

MEMORANDUM James K. Bredar, United States District Judge After a nearly two-year administrative process and two unsuccessful trips through the state courts, Allen R. Dyer (“Plaintiff’), a former member of the Howard County Board of Education (the “County Board”), brought an action in this Court for declaratory relief and damages stemming from alleged violations of his due process, equal protection, and First

*331Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part III-B.† For the better part of two centuries States and their political subdivisions have issued bonds for public purposes, and for nearly half that time some States have exempted interest

27 A.3d 565 (2011) 200 Md. App. 256 MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF the ENVIRONMENT, et al. v. DAYS COVE RECLAMATION CO., INC. No. 1725, September Term, 2008. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. August 30, 2011. *567 Dan Friedman (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., Kathryn M. Rowe, Jacquelin Russell, on the brief),

MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge Plaintiff Stewart Liff, an experienced consultant in public-sector human-resources management, says he and his eponymous firm, Stewart Liff & Associates, have been wrongfully impugned by several arms of the federal government. Both thus sued the U.S. Department of Lab