Cases

OPINION W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs, current and former employees of Amgen, Inc. (“Amgen”) and its subsidiary Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (“AML”), participated in two employer-sponsored pension plans, the Amgen Retirement and Savings. Plan (the “Amgen Plan”) and the Retirement and Savings Plan for Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (the “AML Plan”) (c

OPINION W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs, current and former employees of Amgen, Inc. (“Amgen”) and its subsidiary Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (“AML”), participated in two employer-sponsored pension plans, the Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan (the “Amgen Plan”) and the Retirement and Savings Plan for Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (the “AML Plan”)

ORDER The opinion filed on June 4, 2013, and published at 717 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir.2013), is withdrawn and replaced by the attached opinion. With the filing of the new opinion, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Fletcher has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judges Farris and Kor-man so recommend. <

HIGGINBOTHAM, J. In this medical malpractice case, plaintiffs, Mr. Milton Lee Harris and his wife, Mrs. Lisa Harris, contend that the trial court erred in holding that all of their claims against defendant, Dr. Stephen M. Breaud, other than the claims related to the medical procedure performed on December 29, 2009, were prescribed. Because the issues in this appeal and the related appeal, Harris v. Breaud

HIGGINBOTHAM, J. In this medical malpractice case, plaintiffs, Mr. Milton Lee Harris and Mrs. Lisa Harris, appeal the trial court judgment granting defendant's, Dr. Stephen M. Breaud, declinatory exception raising the objection of lis pendens and peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In February 2009, Mr. Harris was evaluat

730 F.Supp.2d 308 (2010) Igor YEVSTIFEEV, Sviatlana Harnizonava, Plaintiffs, v. Brad STEVE, individually and as Town of Brighton Police Officer, Robert Fisher, individually and as a Town of Brighton Police Officer, Frank Scarcelli, individually and as a Town of Brighton Court Reporter, Town of Brighton, Town of Brighton Police Department, Thomas Voelkl, Town of Brighton Police Chief, Town of Brighton Court, Defendant. No. 08

OPINION O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide whether criminal defendants may avoid prosecution for various federal marijuana offenses on the basis of a congressional appropriations rider that prohibits the United States Department of Justice from spending funds to prevent states’ implementation of their own medical marijuana laws.

OPINION BYBEE, Circuit Judge: In this Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) action we address whether clearly established federal law requires that sentencing enhancements be considered for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The district court denied Smith’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, holding

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), dated October 15, 2010, which, after a hearing, inter alia, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Correction Law § 168-n (3) requires a court making a risk level determination pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), dated October 15, 2010, which, after a hearing, inter alia, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Correction Law § 168-n (3) requires a court making a risk level determination pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration

861 N.E.2d 384 (2007) Eric D. SMITH, Appellant, v. Juanita HARRIS, Appellee. No. 46A03-0607-CV-305. Court of Appeals of Indiana. February 16, 2007. Eric D. Smith, New Castle, IN, Appellant pro se. Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Elizabeth Rogers, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee. OPINION FRIE

ORDER This case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Amgen Inc. v. Harris, — U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. 768, 193 L.Ed.2d 696 (2016). REMANDED.

531 F.Supp.2d 233 (2007) Antonia HARRIS, Mary Walters, and Michael Pollard, Plaintiffs, v. Steve WYDRA, Defendant. No. 3:06CV352 (WWE). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. December 28, 2007. *234 *235 *236 John R. Williams, Katrena K. Engstrom, Wi

02/28/2017 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 18, 2017 Session JONATHAN HARPER v. STEVE HARRIS, ET AL. Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Robertson County No. 08-32042 Joel Perry, Judge ____________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO . 13-0338 444444444444 UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON, PETITIONER, v. SANDRA WILLIAMS AND STEVE WILLIAMS, RESPONDENTS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION F

Opinion issued December 31, 2025. In the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00301-CV ——————————— ANNETTE RAMIREZ, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR AND VOTER REGISTRAR, Appellan

Judge KOZINSKI, with whom Judges O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN and BEA join, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc: The Supreme Court has previously admonished us for ignoring a grant, vacate and remand (GVR) order and “reinstating [our] judgment without seriously confronting the significance of the cases called to [our] attention.” Cavazos v. Smith, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2, 7, 181 L.Ed.2d 311

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 LEE ANN DAUPHINOT, Justice. Appellant the University of Texas at Arlington appeals from the trial court’s order denying its motion to dismiss the claims of Appellees Sandra and Steve Williams. In three issues, UTA argues that Sandra’s claims are governed by the recreational use

312 B.R. 591 (2004) In re Sylvester HARRIS; and Minnie Harris, Debtors. Sylvester Harris; and Minnie Harris, Plaintiffs, v. Washington Mutual Home Loans, Inc., Defendant, Washington Mutual Home Loans, Inc., Appellant, v. Sylvester Harris; and Minnie Harris, Appellees. Bankruptcy No. 96-43714. Nos. 1:03MC8-D, L03CV599-D. Adversary No. 02-1220. United States District Court, N.D. Mississip

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RICHARD H. KYLE, District Judge. INTRODUCTION In this action, Plaintiff Steve Sawczyn alleges the automated teller machines (“ATMs”) of Defendant BMO Harris Bank National Association (“BMO”) were not ac*1110cessible to him as a legally blind individual, in violation of Title III of the Americans