Cases

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 10, 2015 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TAPO T. TABB AND DOUGLAS INGRAM Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County No. ICR085137A Michael Binkley, Judge No. M2014-00617-CCA-R3-CD – Filed November 13, 2015 The Defendant-Appellants, Tapo T. Tabb and Douglas Ingram, were convicted by a Williamso

In the United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 14-397L, 15-194L (Filed: August 31, 2021) ***************************** * Fifth Amendment Taking; GLORIA J. JACKSON, et al., and * National Trails System Act; 16 MARK FREDERICK GUENTHER, *

995 F.Supp. 1304 (1996) Lena R. GAINES-TABB, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ICI EXPLOSIVES USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; Imperial Chemical Industries, PLC, a foreign corporation; ICI Canada Inc., a foreign corporation; Doe Corporations 1 through 99; Doe Companies 1 through 99; John Does 1 through 99, and Jane Does 1 through 99, Defendants. No. CIV-95-719-R. United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma.

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 20-283C Filed: April 11, 2020 Redacted Version Issued for Publication: April 28, 20201 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * STG LLC, * * * Protestor, *

Takings, Physical or Regulatory Taking, Permanent or Temporary Taking, Water Rights, Tribal Rights, Endangered Species Act, Federal Reserved Rights; Motions for Reconsideration. FINDINGS OF FACT MARIAN BLANK HORN, Judge Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases are a consolidated class of farmers in southern Oregon and northern California, who claim they held a right to receive water from

*6RCFC 12(b)(1); RCFC 12(b)(6); Subject Mattel* Jurisdiction; Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted; Pigford Litigation; Section 741; Consent Decree; Equal Credit Opportunity Act; Contractual Takings; Une-nacted Legislation; 2008 Farm Bill OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge - In this case, plaintiff Carl Parker, individuall

ORIGl~J.\L FILED Jfn tbe Wniteb ~tates Qeourt of jfeberal Qelaitns MAR 24 2011 U.S. COURT OF No. 16-264C FEDERAL CLAIMS (Filed Under Seal: January 31, 2017)

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 18-657C (Filed: January 29, 2019) ************************************* CHRISTY, INC., * * Patents; Inter Partes Review; Leahy-Smith Plaintiff, * America Invents Act; R

In the United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 1-591L; 7-194C; 7-19401C; 7-19402C; 7-19403C; 7-19404C; 7-19405C; 7-19406C; 7-19407C; 7-19408C; 7-19409C; 7-19410C; 7-19411C; 7-19412C; 7-19413C; 7-19414C; 7-19415C; 7-19416C; 7-19417C; 7-19418C; 7-19419C; 7-19420C Filed: September 29, 2017 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * LONNY BALEY, et al., 1 and * JOHN ANDERSON FAR

594 F.3d 1165 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lary Lee SPEAKMAN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 08-1332. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. February 2, 2010. *1166 Richard J. Banta, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant Lary Lee Speakman. Paul Farley, Assistant United States Attorney (David M. G

277 So.2d 223 (1973) Wilbert TABB, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Christopher NORRED et al., Defendants-Appellants. No. 4096. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit. April 25, 1973. Rehearing Denied May 24, 1973. Writ Refused June 29, 1973. *224 McBride & Brewster by Norman Foret and Picci

RCFC 12; Motion to Dismiss; RCFC 56; Motion for Summary Judgment; Breach of Contract; Statute of Limitations; Accrual Suspension; Fifth Amendment Takings Claim OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge Before the court is defendant’s combined motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Rules of the United States Court of F

OPINION AND ORDER WOLSKI, Judge. The plaintiff, Gary Bailey, alleges that the United States, acting through the Army Coips of Engineers (“Corps”), has taken his property without payment of just compensation. The matter concerns the application of the Clean Water Act (“the Act”) to a platted subdivision located in Lake of the Woods, Minnesota. Plaintiff contends that actions of the Corps, includin

OPINION BASKIR, Judge. This ease presents an inverse condemnation claim under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs base their claims on the Government’s failure to adequately design, build, or maintain certain levees in New Orleans before and after Hurricane Katrina, resulting in a permanent loss of value to their properties. The Plaintiffs cite the failure of the l

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WILLIAMS, Judge. Plaintiff Judith A. Mansfield, a female employee at the Library of Congress (LOC), alleges that the LOC violated the Equal Pay Act by paying male employees higher wages for doing substantially the same work under similar circumstances. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that she was paid less than four male employees — her supe

OPINION ALLEGRA, Judge. “And then I know of no better way To close a road, abandon a farm, Reduce the births of the human race, And bring back nature in people’s place”1 This takings case is before the court following a trial in Washington, D.C. Plaintiff, Robert Brace, comes from a long line of farmers in Erie County, Pennsylvania. Signifi

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 17-970C Filed: July 13, 2018 ******************************************* * U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3; amend. V, * Takings Clause; 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (Tucker * Act); 48 U.S.C. §§ 2101–2241 (2012 & ALTAIR GLOBAL CREDIT OPPORT

OPINION AND ORDER BLOCK, Judge. Before this court are cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). The underlying claim is predicated on the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.1 In essence, plaintiffs are alleging a “temporary taking”2 of its solid waste disposal site due to a wrongf

OPINION and ORDER FUTEY, Judge. This case concerning the payment and allocation of patent fees is before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant maintains that the court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs Patents and Copyrights Clause1

OPINION MILLER, Judge. This case is before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff, whose term of service in the United States Department of the Navy (the “Navy”) was extended involuntarily when he was court-martialed, seeks back pay pursuant to 37 U.S.C. § 204(a) (1994), 10 U.S.C. § 6330(a)-(c) (2000), and 5 U.S.C. § 8301(a) (2000), and