Cases

ADKINS, J., concurring and dissenting, in which BELL, C.J., and BATTAGLIA, J., join. I agree with the majority in large part. I respectfully concur and dissent, however, because I think the majority adopts an unduly broad interpretation of the “ministerial exception” to state laws against employment discrimination. Although the majority allows Counts I and

545 F.Supp.2d 238 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, v. Ronald E. FERGUSON, Christopher P. Garand, Robert D. Graham, Christian M. Milton, and Elizabeth A. Monrad. Criminal No. 3:06CR137 (CFD). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. January 29, 2008. *239 Alfred U. Pavlis, Daly & Pavlis, LLC, Southport, CT, Clifford H. Sc

Harman Becker Automotive Sys., Inc. v Avnet, Inc. (2025 NY Slip Op 02157) Harman Becker Automotive Sys., Inc. v Avnet, Inc. 2025 NY Slip Op 02157 Decided on April 15, 2025 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law

RENDELL, Circuit Judge. *279 The City of Philadelphia has received funds under the federal Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program ("Byrne JAG") every year since the program's inception in 2006. Last year, however, the Justice Department notified the City that it was withhol

769 P.2d 201 (1989) 95 Or.App. 134 STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Diane Lynn WATSON, Respondent. 87030454; CA A44778. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted February 22, 1988. Decided February 8, 1989. Jonathan H. Fussner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Dave Frohn

RULING RE: LILLEMOE’S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A NEW TRIÁL (DOC. NO. 336) AND CALDERON’S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OR FOR A NEW TRIAL (DOC. NO. 337) Janet C. Hall, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION On November 9, 2016, defendant Brett Lillemoe was convicted of one count of *112

ORDER MARY D. SCOTT, Bankruptcy Judge. Now before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in this adversary proceeding for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Plaintiff filed this Complaint pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(4) and (6) objecting to dischargeability of its debt by this debtor. Debtor moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which

124 B.R. 840 (1991) In re James E. FREEMAN, Debtor. SNAP-ON TOOLS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. James E. FREEMAN, Appellee. Bankruptcy No. BK 89-04289, Civ. A. No. CV-90-A-02795-S. United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, S.D. March 4, 1991. *841 Ruth Simmons Capra, Birmingham, Ala., for appellant. Cindee Dale Holmes,

In re: DBSD NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al., Chapter 11, Debtors. Case No. 09-13061 (REG) Jointly Administered. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York. October 26, 2009. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP New York, New York James H.M. Sprayregen, P.C., Esq. Christopher J. Marcus, Esq. Yosef J. Riemer, Esq. (argued) Lee Ann Stevenson, Esq. (argued) Matthew F. Dexter, Esq. (argued) Christopher V. Coulston,

634 F.3d 79 (2010) In re DBSD NORTH AMERICA, Incorporated, Debtor. DISH Network Corporation, Creditor-Appellant, v. DBSD North America, Incorporated, Debtor-Appellee, Ad Hoc Committee of Senior Noteholders, Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Creditors-Appellees. Sprint Nextel Corporation, Appellant, v. DBSD North America, Inc., Ad Hoc Committee of Senior Noteholders, Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Appellees

23-23-77370 (L); 23-7376 (L) Petersen Energía; Eton Park et al. v. Argentie Argentine Republic, YPF S.A.PF S.A. 23-7370 (L); 23-7376 (L) Petersen Energía Inversora et al.; Eton Park Cap. Mgmt. et al. v. Argentine Republic, YPF S.A. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2025 (Argued: O

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-2142 SANDOR DEMKOVICH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ST. ANDREW THE APOSTLE PARISH, CALUMET CITY, and THE ARCHDIOCESE OF CHICAGO, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeal fro

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2021 WY 17 OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2020 January 29, 2021 JONTRA HOLDINGS PTY LTD, an Australian registered company; BRISBANE ANGELS NOMINEES PTY LTD, an Australian registered company; and ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT PTY LTD, an Australian registered company, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. GAS SENSING TECHNOLOGY CO

BALMER, J., specially concurring. This case never presented a justiciable controversy because petitioner’s 30-day exclusion order had expired before he filed his petition for review in circuit court. For that reason, I agree with the majority that the circuit court judgment should be vacated and that the petition filed in the circuit court should be dismissed as moot.1 The majori

96 B.R. 689 (1989) In re Edmund Roy GILLIE and wife, Doris Lynette Gillie, Debtors. Edmund Roy GILLIE and wife, Doris Lynette Gillie, Plaintiffs, v. FIRST STATE BANK OF MORTON, TEXAS, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 588-50026-7, Adv. No. 588-5025. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas, Lubbock Division. February 17, 1989. George H. Nelson, Law Offices of George H

SHEDD, Circuit Judge, with whom Judge NIEMEYER and Judge AGEE join, dissenting1: National security is a complex business with potentially grave consequences for our country. Recognizing this fact, the Supreme Court has observed that “it is obvious and unarguable that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation.” Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EPIC GAMES, INC., No. 21-16506 Plaintiff-counter- defendant-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:20-cv-05640- v. YGR APPLE, INC., Defendant-counter- OPINION claimant- Appellee. EPIC GAMES, INC., No. 21-16695

19‐267 (L) New York et al. v. United States Dep’t of Justice et al. In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit AUGUST TERM 2018 Nos. 19‐267(L); 19‐275(con) STATE OF NEW YORK, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, STATE OF WASHINGTON, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ST

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I agree that this is not an easy case, but I have no hesitation in concluding that the Foreign Trade and Antitrust Improvements Act does not here divest the federal courts of jurisdiction and that the plaintiff has standing. With deference to my colleagues, I am persuaded by the plain text of section 6a, as well as its statutory context, legislative history, a

*462 LANDAU, J. ORS 250.048(9) 1 provides that a person who is registered with the Secretary of State to collect initiative petition signatures for pay may not, “at the same time, obtain signatures on a petition or prospective petition for which