Cases

[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-10291 JULY 2, 2012 ________________________ JOHN LEY

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: I. Valinda S. Kornhauser brought this lawsuit to challenge the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim for disability benefits. The District Court referred the case to a Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation (“R&R”) on the merits of Kornhauser’s challenge. On receiving the referral, the M

780 F.Supp.2d 1084 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE (133) UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE MONEY ORDERS Totaling $127,479.24 In United States Currency, Defendant. Life Enhancement Products, Inc.; Will Block; and Samuel Kornhauser, Claimants. CIV. No. 10-00200 JMS-RLP. United States District Court, D. Hawai`i. April 28, 2011.

184 B.R. 425 (1995) In re Jesaye KORNHAUSER, Debtor. Bankruptcy No. 94-B-21061. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York. April 11, 1995. *426 The Law Office of Shmuel Klein by Shmuel Klein, Spring Valley, NY, for debtor. Shapiro & Kreisman by Michael Resnikoff and Douglas Dominianni, Melville, NY, for Secured Creditor.</

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims granted.

276 U.S. 145 (1928) KORNHAUSER v. UNITED STATES. No. 162. Supreme Court of United States. Submitted January 12, 1928. Decided February 20, 1928. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. *146 Mr. L.L. Hamby was on the brief for petitioner. *151 MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND de

Moss, Judge, rendered the opinion of the court: It is alleged by plaintiff in his original petition that in his income-tax return for the calendar year 1918 he claimed as a deduction from his gross income for that year the sum of $10,000, being the amount paid by him for attorney’s fees incurred in defending an action against himself for an accounting instituted by his former law partner, in which acti

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued March 30, 2022 Decided August 30, 2022 No. 21-5179 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., APPELLANT Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:08-cv-00

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-798 (Filed: 19 August 2022) *************************************** ACTAVIS LABORATORIES, FL, INC., * * Plaintiff, * Summary Judgment; Hatch-Waxman Act; * Tax Deduction; Capitalizati

STAHL, Circuit Judge. Brian Rogers was convicted by a jury in the District of Maine of possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Rogers now appeals his conviction, arguing that the government did not prove that he knowingly possessed the child pornography that was found on a laptop he sold to a pawn shop. Rogers also challenges the district court’s a

FEINBERG, Chief Judge, concurring: I concur in the analysis and conclusions in Parts II, III and IV A of Judge Newman’s comprehensive opinion and that portion of part IV B which addresses the eighth amendment issue. However, I concur only in the result with regard to the continued confinement on grounds of dangerousness of appellants Gonzales Claudio and Camacho-Negron. Judge Newman’s opinion rules unconstitut

514 F.Supp. 210 (1981) James PECK, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants. 76 Civ. 983 (CES). United States District Court, S. D. New York. May 1, 1981. Reargument Granted in Part and Denied in Part August 17, 1981. *211 Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, New York City, for

MEMORANDUM DECISION STEWART, District Judge. Plaintiff James Peck has moved in this Court, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 26, 34 and 37, for an order requiring the defendant United States to permit the plaintiff to copy and inspect five different categories of documents. Defendant has objected to the plaintiff’s requests on grounds of privilege and relevance. The scope of discovery is set out in Rule 26, F.R.Civ.

346 F.Supp.2d 259 (2003) UNITED STATES of America, v. Richard GREEN, Defendant. United States of America, v. William Olivero, Jason Pacheco, Defendants. United States of America, v. Edward K. Mills, Defendant. United States of America, v. Jane Doe,[1] Defendant. Nos. CR. A. 02-10054-WGY, CR.A. 01-10469-WGY, CR.A. 99-10066-WGY.[2] United States D

987 F.Supp. 460 (1997) Richard R. ALLEN, Sr., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. No. 5:96-CV-909-F. United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division. December 2, 1997. *461 David D. Dahl, Manning, Fulton & Skinner, Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiff. R.A. Renfer, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Office

EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: Today we consider what remedies are available to a federal employee who has work-related differences with his supervisors. Specifically, we decide whether a federal employee may use either a constitutional or a common law tort theory to sue his supervisors over disputes growing out of his employment.

TORRUELLA, Chief Judge. Respondenb-Appellee, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the “Commissioner”), determined a deficiency of $57,441 in the 1989 Federal income tax filed by J. Kenneth Alexander (the “Taxpayer”) and Joanne M. Alexander (together, the “Appellants” or the “Petitioners”). The Tax Court upheld the Commissioner’s determination and the Petitioners now seek revi

522 F.Supp. 245 (1981) James PECK, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. No. 76 Civ. 983 (CES). United States District Court, S. D. New York. August 17, 1981. *246 Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, New York City, for plaintiff; Edward Copeland, Eric M. Lieberman, Lewis A. Kornhauser, New York Cit

TABLE OF CONTENTS i. Background....................................................... 363 Maximum Rate Exemption.................................... 365 A. The Commission Decision............................. 365 B. Abuse of Market Power............................... 367 1. The standard of review.......................... 367 2. “General” market constraint

790 F.2d 984 54 USLW 2577 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Yvonne MELENDEZ-CARRION, Hilton Fernandez-Diamante, LuisAlfredo Colon Osorio, Filiberto Ojeda Rios, IsaacCamacho-Negron, Orlando Gonzales Claudio, Elias SamuelCastro-Ramos and Juan Enrique Segarra Palmer, Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 830, 906, 874, 877, 926, 898, 881, 899, 907, 908 and962, Dockets 85-1431, 85-