Cases

377 F.3d 949 PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, a Washington nonprofit corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant,v.SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1, a political subdivision of the State of Washington; Joseph Olchefske, in his official capacity as superintendent; Barbara Schaad-Lamphere, in her official capacity as President of the Board of Directors of Seattle Public Schools; Donald Nielsen, in his official capacity as Vice Presi

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting. These cases consider the longstanding efforts of two local school boards to integrate their public schools. The school board plans before us resemble many others adopted in the last 50 years by primary and secondary schools throughout the Nation. All of those plans represent local efforts to bring about the kind of

Opinion by Judge O’SCANNLAIN; Dissent by Judge GRABER O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge. Following the Washington Supreme Court’s resolution of certified state-law questions, we must decide whether the use of race in determining which students will be admitted to oversubscribed high schools in Seattle, Washington, violates the federal Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. I

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE PAUL MICHEL and ANN MICHEL, ) No. 82073-7-I husband and wife; JOHN W. MERRIAM ) consolidated with and BRENDA K. WALKER, husband ) No. 82074-5-I and wife, ) ) Respondents, ) ) v. )

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION (not the court’s final written decision) The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the written opinions that are originally filed by the court. A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential pur

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION (not the court’s final written decision) The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the written opinions that are originally filed by the court. A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential pur

González, J. ¶1 This direct appeal concerns the public disclosure of Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) grievance hearing decisions pursuant to the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW SHA hearing decisions contain *426welfare recipients’ personal information. This information is exempt from disclosure under the PRA, but the PRA requires redaction and disclosure of pu

/ Fl LE IN CLERKS OFFICE llJIREME COURT, STAlE Of WASIIIG1al : 01TE....MAY 0 9 201~ -yl'1....,.~ 'JUSTICE CHIEF c ·ct'. ~· IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RESIDENT ACTION COUNCIL, ) ) Respondent, ) No. 87656-8 ) v. )

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID THOMPSON; AARON No. 17-35019 DOWNING; JIM CRAWFORD; DISTRICT 18 OF THE ALASKA REPUBLICAN D.C. No. PARTY, 3:15-cv-00218- Plaintiffs-Appellants, TMB v. OPINION HEATHER HEBDON, in Her Official Capacity as the Executive Director of the Alaska Publi

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TRUTH, an unincorporated  association; SARICE UNDIS, a minor, by and through her father, LARRY UNDIS; JULIANNE STEWART, a minor, by and through her parents, PAUL and ANNA STEWART, Plaintiffs-Appellants, No. 04-35876 v.  D.C. No. CV-03-00785-MJP KENT SCHOOL

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT P.N., parent of T.N., a minor,  No. 04-36141 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. CV-04-00258-JCC SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1,  ORDER Defendant-Appellee. AMENDING OPINION AND AMENDED

EN BANC BENTON, C.J. After the trial judge denied their motion to dismiss respondents’ amended complaint for declaratory and supplemental relief, the President of the Florida Senate, the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, the Commissioner of Education, and the State Board of Education filed a petition for writ of prohibition, initiating original proceedings here in an effort to br

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT P.N., parent of T.N., a minor,  No. 04-36141 Plaintiff-Appellant, v.  D.C. No. CV-04-00258-JCC SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1, OPINION Defendant-Appellee.  Appeal from the Un

04/06/2021 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE January 27, 2021 Session IN RE ESTATE OF B. RAY THOMPSON, JR. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Knox County No. 79197-2 Clarence E. Pridemore, Jr., Chancellor No. E2019-01364-COA

BENTON, C.J. After the trial judge denied their motion to dismiss respondents’ amended complaint for declaratory and supplemental relief, the President of the Florida Senate, the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, the Commissioner of Education, and the State Board of Education filed a petition for writ of prohibition, initiating original proceedings here in an effort to bring further proceedings in the circuit

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Jade Thompson ("Plaintiff") sues the Marietta Education Association ("the Union") and Marietta Board of Education ("the Board") (collectively, "Defendants") under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She argues that Ohio Revised Code § 4117.04 -05 is unconstitutional and moves for

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RANDEY THOMPSON, No. 24-5263 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:21-cv-00252- SAB v. CENTRAL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 365; BEN SMALL, OPINION Individually as Superintendent of the Central Valley School District; DEB

57 F.Supp.2d 228 (1999) William CAPACCHIONE, Individually and on Behalf of Cristina Capacchione, a Minor, Plaintiff, and Michael P. Grant et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS et al., Defendants. James E. Swann et al., Plaintiffs, v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., Defendants. Nos. 3:97-CV-482-P, 3:65-CV-1974-P. United States District Court

92 P.3d 228 (2004) 151 Wash.2d 793 STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. James Ross THOMPSON, Petitioner. No. 72997-2. Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. Argued June 10, 2003. Decided June 24, 2004. *230 Rita Joan Griffith, Seattle, for Petitioner. Kathleen Proctor, Pierce County P

Alexander, J. We are asked in this case to determine whether the petitioner, the City of Seattle (City), falls within the scope of RCW 19.28.120(1), a statute that requires an electrical contractor’s license for non-utility electrical work. We hold that the City is an “entity” subject to that statute, and, thus, affirm the Court of Appeals. FACTS The relevant facts in this case are few and