Cases

Barnes, J. The issue between the parties in this case is as to the character of a transfer of property. The parties for several years had each owned ninety-nine of the two hundred shares of a corporation engaged in the business of retailing furniture and one-half, in common and undivided, of the store used in the business and the lot on which it stands, in Augusta. The defendant had been i

OPINION AND ORDER NELSON S. ROMÁN, District Judge. Plaintiff Sidney Frank Importing Co., Inc. (“SFIC” or “Plaintiff’) commenced the instant action against Beam Inc. (“Beam”) and Cooley Distillery pic (“Cooley”) (collectively “Defendants”) seeking monetary damages for Cooley’s alleged breach of a long-term service contract, Beam’s alleged violation of common law unfair competition, and Beam’s alleged tortiou

Justice GORSUCH, dissenting. A free society does not allow its government to try the same individual for the same crime until it's happy with the result. Unfortunately, the Court today endorses a colossal exception to this ancient rule against double jeopardy. My colleagues say that the federal government and each State are "separate sovereigns" entitled to try the same person for the same crime. So if all the might of one "sover

704 F.Supp. 380 (1989) D.W.E. CORP. and Overseas International Trading Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. T.F.L. "FREEDOM" and the M.V. "NICOLE", their engines, boilers, etc., v. SOCIETE NAVALE CHARGEURS DELMAS-VIELJEUX and Timur Carriers, Defendants. No. 85 Civ. 8981 (PNL). United States District Court, S.D. New York. January 10, 1989.

618 F.Supp. 62 (1985) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. M.V. "NEDLLOYD ROUEN", her engines, boilers, etc., NEDLLOYD LIJNEN B.V. (Nedlloyd Lines), Defendants. No. 84 Civ. 1113 (KTD). United States District Court, S.D. New York. February 28, 1985. *63 Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, New York City, for plaintiff; John

OPINION OF THE COURT Diane A. Lebedeff, J. In these two cases involving reinsurance policies, motions for summary judgment seek a determination regarding the parties’ rights under reinsurance arrangements made through the Society of Lloyd’s of London (Lloyd’s). In each case, the court must decide whether the defendant’s predecessor was a "fronter” for a reinsurance syndicate, which would render defendant

CARDAMONE, Circuit Judge: ■ This appeal presents a unique challenge to an ocean carrier’s limitation of liability under its bill of lading. Guiding our analysis are centuries old maritime principles of carriage, derived from the customs of the law merchant, the resilient strands of which were woven into the cloth of the common law where these principles survive today. General

972 F.Supp. 1253 (1997) In the Matter of the Requested Extradition of Kevin Barry John ARTT. In the Matter of the Requested Extradition of Pol BRENNAN. In the Matter of the Requested Extradition of Terence Damien KIRBY. Nos. CR-92-0151-MISC-CAL, CR-93-0032-MISC-CAL and CR-94-0086-MISC-CAL. United States District Court, N.D. California. August 11, 1997.

397 F.Supp. 1332 (1975) FORD MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED v. M/S MARIA GORTHON, etc., et al. RAMSAY, SCARLETT & CO., INC. v. M/S MARIA GORTHON and Ford Motor Company Limited. Civ. Nos. Y-74-548, Y-74-1130. United States District Court, D. Maryland. July 29, 1975. *1333 David R. Owen, Baltimore, Md., for Ford Motor Co.

Justice BREYER, concurring. I continue to believe that this case presents a political question inappropriate for judicial resolution. See Zivotofsky v. Clinton,566 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 1421, 182 L.Ed

FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge: In this action for cargo damage in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, cargo appeals from that part of the judgment which limited its claim against the ship, its owner, and the time charterer to $500 per package pursuant to § 4(5) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 U.S.C. § 1304(5)

USCA1 Opinion UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT _________________________ No. 92-1633 IN RE: EXTRADITION OF CURTIS ANDREW HOWARD. _________________________ UNITED STATES OF

7/19/2019 9:34:03 AM Compare Results Old File: New File: 17-646.pdf 17-646_new2.pdf versus 88 pages (422 KB) 88 pages (430 KB)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 92-1633 IN RE: EXTRADITION OF CURTIS ANDREW HOWARD. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, Appellee, v. CURTIS ANDREW HOWARD, Respondent, Appellant.

996 F.2d 1320 In re EXTRADITION OF Curtis Andrew HOWARD.UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner, Appellee,v.Curtis Andrew HOWARD, Respondent, Appellant. No. 92-1633. United States Court of Appeals,First Circuit. Heard May 3, 1993.Decided June 30, 1993. Jeffrey A. Denner, with whom George Garfinkle and Per

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2018 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

FOURT, J.* I dissent from the judgment of conviction against Theodore A. Cohen (hereafter referred to as Cohen) and concur in the judgment of reversal with reference to Susan Cohen. First of all a chronological recital of some of the appearances of the defendants in the various departments of the superior court and what was said and done

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2018 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

863 F.Supp. 1137 (1994) In the Matter of The REQUESTED EXTRADITION OF James Joseph SMYTH. No. CR 92-0152 MISC BAC. United States District Court, N.D. California. September 15, 1994. Mark N. Zanides, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, CA, for U.S. Karen Snell, Asst. Federal Public Defender, San Francisco, CA, for James Joseph Smyth. ORDER