Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 04-0798 (PLF) ) ALL ASSETS HELD AT BA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) Civil Action No. 04-0798 (PLF) ) ALL ASSETS HELD AT BANK JULIUS) Baer & Company, Ltd., Guernsey ) Branch, account number 121128, in the ) Name of Pavlo Lazarenko et al., ) ) Defendants In Rem. ) ) OPINION This matter is before the Court on the motion of the United States for summary judgment to strike the claim of Pavel Lazarenko, also known as Pavlo Lazarenko, to the defendan

Rogers, Circuit Judge: *1031 On October 22, 2016, AT&T Inc. announced a proposed merger with Time Warner Inc. The government sued to enjoin this vertical merger under Section 7 of the Clayton Act,

NEIL LAUGAND * NO. 2024-CA-0687 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL FOUR POINTS BY SHERATON * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* APPEAL FROM

II Together with the right to vote, those who wrote our Constitution considered the right to trial by jury "the heart and lungs, the mainspring and the center wheel" of our liberties, without which "the body must die; the watch must run down; the government must become arbitrary." Letter from Clarendon to W. Pym (Jan. 27, 1766), in 1 Papers of John Adams 169 (R. Taylor ed. 1977). Just as the ri

Finally, Wilson makes the following two requests in his objections: (i) permit defense counsel to be present in the room during the Government's expert's interviewing and/or testing of Wilson, and (ii) authorize the video recording of any testing performed. The Court will address and deny each request in turn. 1. Right to Counsel During the Government's Neuropsychological Testing Regarding his first request

Justice KAVANAUGH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Justice ALITO, concurring in the judgment. The Constitution confers on Congress certain "legislative [p]owers," Art. I, § 1, and does not permit Congress to delegate them to another branch of the Government. See Whitman v. American Trucking Assns. , Inc.,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DlSTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff, § v. § Civil Case No. 17-2511 (RJL) AT&T INC., et al., § Defendants. § F I L E D h/_ JUN 1 2 2018 MEMORAND_UM OPINION @9.'3§‘§ ?t?ili‘%‘l鑧l§§?'é’§ll¥l§¥a (June LZ, 2018) If there ever were an antitrust case where the parties had a dramatically different assessment of the current state of the relevant market and a fundamentally different vision of its future development, this is the one. Small

Trooper Hassett then conducted the search of the car. First, he saw the bags on the seat in plain sight containing a flashlight that would attach to a pistol. Tr. 49:16-18. He secured the flashlight. Id. at 52:19-53:3. He became reasonably concerned that there might be a weapon in the vehicle. Id. He found the loaded Glock pistol under the passenger's seat. A further search of the vehicle after police towed it and it was i

7 There is one wrinkle when applying this general rule. When a court is "dealing with a so-called 'divisible' statute," it must "employ the 'modified categorical approach' to determine which alternative crime the defendant committed." United States v. Redrick , 841 F.3d 478, 482 (D.

Defendants Gottcent, Garske and Sedlak now formally move to dismiss the indictment under the Double Jeopardy Clause. See Dkt # 416. The court welcomed supplemental briefing on this issue, and heard argument on the Motion on July 17, 2018. DISCUSSION The court offers a few words first about the origins of the traditional principle that a jury is to consist of twelve individuals -- a principle embedded in federal cri

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 04-0798 (PLF) ) ALL ASSETS HELD AT

III. GARDNER'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY Gardner moves to exclude the defendants' joint expert, Dr. Moulton, under *1324Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Gardner asserts that Dr. Moulton's opinions are not "the product of reliable principles and methods" because he did not examine Gardner befor

2 It is unclear why the Fourth Circuit elected not to publish these opinions, but what is clear is that they not only said it, but two separate panels said it and ignoring that would be foolish absent a strong reason to do so. 3 See also United States v. Padilla ,

821 A.2d 1168 (2003) 360 N.J. Super. 156 Joseph LA RUSSA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOUR POINTS AT SHERATON HOTEL, Lenat Development Company Limited and Prime Hospitality Corporation, Defendants, and High Grade Beverage Corp., Defendant-Respondent. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued March 26, 2003. Decided May 14, 2003. <

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued December 2, 2021 Decided August 16, 2022 No. 20-5356 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE v. ALL ASSETS HELD AT CREDIT SUISSE (GUERNSEY) LIMITED, ACCOUNT NUMBERS 41610 AND 41950, IN THE NAME OF SAMANTE LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE BALFORD TRUST, LAST VALUED AT APPROXIMATELY $147.9 MILLION IN UNITED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 04-0798 (PLF) ) ALL ASSETS HELD A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 04-0798 (PLF) ) ALL ASSETS HEL

RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge If there ever were an antitrust case where the parties had a dramatically different assessment of the current state of the relevant market and a fundamentally different vision of its future development, this is the one. Small wonder it had to go to trial! *164On November 20, 2017, t

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA __________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) No. 04-cv-798 (PLF/GMH) ) ALL ASSETS HELD AT BANK JULIUS BAER ) & CO., LTD., GUERNSEY B