FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
|
|
- Tiffany Ray
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 an. zs. 2U 4 I4:22 No P. 1/8 OREGON TAX COURT CO ~VUH Tdx a ~ 9r~ OF' APF'G~ 1163 State Street Salem, Oregon Tel Fax:(503) FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET TO: Thane Tienson. Gregory Mowe. Stephanie Parent. Paul Conable FAX NO: (503) (3) {971) :(503) FROM: I-Ion. Henry C. Breithaupt DATE: January 8, 2014 SUBJECT: Kramer & Prager v City of Lake Oswego et al., CV NO. PAGES: (including this page) 8 This Communication May Consist of Information Intended Only for the Use of the Individual or Entity Named Above. If the Reader of this Message is Not the Intended Recipient, You Are Hereby Notified That Any Dissemination, Distribution, or Copying of this Communication Is Strictly Prohibited, If You Receive This Communication In Error, Please Notify Us By Telephone and Return the Communication To Us at the Address Listed Above Via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank You. If you do not receive the number of pages indicated,please contact our office immediately at (503 )
2 Jan. d :22 P. 2/8 HENRY C. BREITHAUPT Judge Pro Tern Fax: January 8, 2014 Thane W. Tienson Stephanie M. Parent Landye Bennett Blumstein LLP Oregon Department of Justice 1300 SW 5th Ave Ste SW 5th Ave Ste 410 Portland OR Portland OR Gregory R. Mowe Paul W. Conable Stoel Rives LLP Tonkon Torp LLP 900 SW 5th Ave Ste SW 5th Ave Ste 1600 Portland OR Portland OR Dear Counsel: Re: Kramer & Prager v. City of Lake Oswego et al., No. CV This matter is before the court on a motion for partial summary judgment of plaintiffs, a motion to dismiss filed by defendant-intervenor Lake Oswego Corporation (LOC)and motions for summary judgment filed by LOC, defendant the City of Lake Oswego (City), and defendant the State of Oregon (State). The briefing and argument on these motions occurred in two stages. In the first stage, matters addressed in the complaint as it stood before the final permitted amendment were addressed and the focus was on the provisions of Resolution of the City. In the second stage, the major focus was on whether the rules of the City governing the swim park violated Article I, section 20 of the Oregon Constitution. I. STANDING AS TO RESOLUTION LOC raises in its motion to dismiss the issue of the standing of the plaintiffs to seek the judicial remedies they request. This may also be considered an argument that there is no justiciable controversy presented by plaintiffs. The Oregon Supreme Court has made it clear that standing is to be determined by reference to the statute pursuant to which the plaintiffs seek relief. In the case of the declaratory judgment statute, the statute speaks of an ordinance or law affecting the "rights, status or legal relations." Morgan v Sisters School Dist. No. 6, 353 Or 189, 190, 301 P 3d 419 (2013). The relief sought most also have some practical effect. Id Kramer & Prager v. City of Lake Oswego et al.. No. CV Page I of 7
3 an. U. 2U 14 14:11 No P. 3/8 HENRY C. BREITHAUPT Judge Pro Tern Fax: It appears to the court that the allegations of the plaintiffs here identify a right or status that is affected by Resolution namely their right to cross the property of the City to access the lake. However, in the case of the type of injunctive relief that the plaintiffs seek, relief that is not governed by a specific statute, plaintiffs must also show that they are injured by Resolution "in some special sense that goes beyond the injury the plaintiffs would expect as a member of the general public." Eckles v. State of Oregon, 306 Or 380, 386, 760 P2d 846 (1988). Morgan cites Eckles with approval. Here, Resolution prevents all others, just as it prevents plaintiffs, from using the property of the City as an access to the lake. The injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs would not appear to address an injury to them that is in some special sense an injury that would go beyond the injury the plaintiffs would experience as members of the general public. The court is therefore inclined to grant the motion to dismiss insofar as it addresses the challenges to Resolution The law of justiciability and standing is, however, sufficiently difficult, and the probability of a misunderstanding by the court sufficiently high, that the court will proceed to address the issue of standing as to the swim park rules and the availability of relief to the plaintiffs on the merits. II. STANDING AS TO SWIM PARK RULES. The challenge as to the swim park rules is that they violate Article I, section 20 of the Oregon Constitution. Plaintiff Prager has no standing to raise this claim as he is a resident of the City. Plaintiff Kramer is not a resident of the City and does have standing to raise the question of the constitutionality of the rules. The City has objected that plaintiff Kramer has not alleged that he wishes to swim. In an abundance of caution, the court will address the challenges raised by plaintiff Kramer on the merits. III. VALIDITY OF SWIM PARK RULES. Pursuant to the order of Judge Herndon, the validity of the restrictions, subject to which the City took the upland property that is part of the swim park, is not at issue. The only challenge to the rules restricting use of the park to residents arises under Article I section 20 of the Oregon Constitution. As the parties have agreed, the analysis to be undertaken is the same as that applicable to challenges under the Equal Protection clause of the 14 i1' Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Kramer & Prager v. City of Lake Osweg o et a1.. No. CV Page 2 of 7
4 Jan :23 No P. 4/8 HENRY C. BREITHAUPT Judge Pro Tern Fax: Plaintiff Kramer asserts that strict scrutiny is mandated as to these rules as they impact on a fundamental interest related to the rights of the public in the waters of the state and the land underlying such waters. The City and LOC assert that only a rational basis level of scrutiny is warranted. It would appear that geographic classifications warrant only rational basis review. Seto v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transp. Dist. of Oregon, 311 Or 456, 814 P2d 1060 (1991); Morsman v. city of Madras, 203 Or App 546, 126 P3d 6 (2006). Under such review the rules of the City pass muster with no difficulty. However, even if Plaintiff Kramer is correct as to the level of scrutiny required, there is no violation of the Oregon constitution. The City has a compelling governmental interest in maintaining for its residents the availability of the swim park. Indeed, plaintiff Kramer acknowledges that access to the waters of the lake is a very important interest. The restrictions of the City are also narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling governmental interest. The restrictions do not go beyond the terms of the covenants and restrictions to which ownership by the City is subject. Although plaintiff Kramer disagrees with the restrictive covenants that burden the land acquired by the city, they are valid. Violation of those restrictions could lead to a loss of access to the lake for anyone. Compliance by the City with the restrictive covenants is not a violation of the Oregon Constitution. IV. VALIDITY OF RESOLUTION Under its charter, the City has the authority needed to promulgate Resolution The possible limits on an exercise of that authority must come from valid state laws, the Oregon Constitution, valid federal statutes or the federal constitution. Plaintiffs have identified no state statute that purports to limit the City in its exercise of its home rule powers through adoption of Resolution Plaintiffs have argued that Article I section 20 of the Oregon Constitution applies and is violated by Resolution The Resolution, however, applies to all persons and classes of persons and cannot, therefore, constitute a violation of Article I section 20 of the Oregon Constitution. Plaintiffs do not argue that any federal statute or provision of the federal constitution limits the exercise of the City in the adoption of Resolution To the extent that the Oregon Admissions Act imposes any limitation in respect of the Public Trust Doctrine, that limitation is imposed on the State as trustee and not the City. Krasner & Prager y. City of Lake Oswego et al., No. CV Page 3 of 7
5 Jan. d :23 No P. 5/8 HENRY C. BREITHAUPT Judge Pro Tern Fax: Plaintiffs appear to argue that somehow the Public Trust Doctrine applies to the City and makes its adoption of Resolution invalid. However, under the Public Trust Doctrine there is only one trustee, and that is the State. Plaintiffs identify no statute of the State that would prevent the City from adopting or enforcing Resolution This is in stark contrast to the situation addressed in Morse v Oregon Div. of State Lands, 34 Or App 853, 581 P2d 520 reh'g den, 35 Or App 665, 583 P2d 40 (1978), nff'd 285 Or 197, 590 P2d 709 (1979), a case in which the validity of a regulation was tested against the provisions of a statute adopted by the State as trustee. And, it is worth noting that in Morse the question was not action on or access to the upland but rather filling of submerged or submersible land. Plaintiffs fare no better in their assertion that the Public Use Doctrine is a basis for challenging the actions of the City. The Public Use Doctrine regulates the actions of persons already on the water to which the doctrine applies. Although the doctrine may allow temporary touching or access to uplands where necessity requires it, the doctrine cannot serve as a basis for preventing upland owners from restricting access to the water. Lebanon Lumber Co. v. Leonard, 68 Or 147, 136 P 891 (1913); Op Atty Gen No (April 21, 2005). The necessity element cannot be read as requiring an upland owner to provide regular access across uplands to the water. The cases speak not of access to the water by way of the land, but rather of access front the water to land, where such access to the land is necessary to make meaningful the use of the water. In this case plaintiffs do not benefit from the Public Use Doctrine in their effort to force the City to allow access from the land to the water. V. DUTY OF THE STATE TO TAKE ACTION AS TO RESOLUTION Plaintiffs argue that under the Public Trust Doctrine the State has a duty to take action in respect of Resolution 12-12, and otherwise, so as to allow plaintiffs and the public to access the lake across the land owned by the City and subject to Resolution With respect to the invocation by the plaintiffs of the Public Trust Doctrine, it is important to observe that the doctrine appears to relate only to the beds of streams and lakes owned by the State and the waters above them. For purposes of this opinion it is assumed, without any decision being made on the subject, that the State owns the subsurface of Lake Oswego and Lakewood Bay. While the Public Trust Doctrine clearly relates to the subsurface of navigable waters, and again it is assumed, but not decided, that the waters of Lake Oswego and Lakewood Bay are navigable, it does not speak to the rights or obligations of a state in respect of upland or riparian property owned by others. And, as to the land controlled by the state under the doctrine, "it has been long established that the individual States have the authority to define the limits of the lands held in public trust and to recognize private rights in such lands as they see fit." Phillips Kramer & Prager v. City of Lake Oswego et a1.. No. CV Page4of7
6 Jan :24 No.0556 P. 6/8 HENRY C. BREITHAUPT Judge Pro Tern Fax: Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi, 484 US 469, 475, 108 S Ct 791, 98 L Ed 2d 877 (1988) (quoting from Shively v. Bow/by, 152 U.S. 1, 26 (1894)). The court is not aware of a case in which a court has seen fit to order a state to take action against an upland owner to provide access to lands and water to which the state has title. The rights and obligations of the State as to such upland could not be greater than they are as to the subsurface. The court will therefore consider the nature and extent of the duties of the state as to the subsurface to determine whether a court could order the State to take action as to such subsurface. If requiring action as to subsurface is not appropriate, neither could any requirement of action as to upland be appropriate. As mentioned above, the State is the trustee tinder the Public Trust Doctrine. The Public Trust Doctrine is a matter of state law and does not depend on the federal constitution. PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, US, 132 SCt 1215, 182 L Ed 2d 77 (2012). Under basic republican theory, the State acts through the legislature in the first instance. This was recognized in all of the opinions in Morse. Provisions in the Oregon Constitution relating to the State Land Board, Oregon statutes and the creation of state agencies charged with the implementation of those statutes indicate that questions regarding the Public Trust Doctrine have not, in Oregon, been left for development by the courts of a common law doctrine. The actions of the State as trustee must be taken by statute. The plaintiffs have not, however, pointed to a statute pursuant to which an agency of the state is required to take the action they request this court order. If and when the State has acted legislatively, the actions of agencies charged with application of statutes may be challenged in court, as they were in Morse. Similarly, actions of subsidiary governments or other persons could also be subject to challenge. However, each state is the trustee for its citizens. Accordingly, actions and decisions from other states are of limited usefulness in determining how the State is to be judged with respect to its role as trustee. Indeed, this court is of the opinion that the State is not subject to being "judged" in a court, except perhaps when action has been taken that is arguably inconsistent with the Public Trust Doctrine as developed by legislative action. This is exactly what occurred in the Morse case. No such action by the State or any of its agencies has occurred here and the court finds the position of the State regarding positive duties--which no court in Oregon has found a basis on which to impose a positive duty to act--to be well taken, In this particular case the duty the plaintiffs seek to impose is for the state to take action to insure that they have access to the lake across upland property not owned by the State and burdened by covenants and restrictions limiting access to the lake. Krasner & Prager v. City of Lake Oswego et al., No. CV Page 5 of 7
7 Jan :25 No.0556 P. 7/8 HENRY C. BREITHAUPT judge Pro Tern Fax: There are important fundamental reasons for the court to stay its hand in imposing on the State a duty to act in this and similar cases--that is, cases where public enjoyment of water which is or may be owned by the State or above land owned by the State involves the necessity to pass over property not owned by the State. First, there appear to be no precedents that support requiring the State to take action in respect of upland property not owned by it. Second, the role of the State as trustee involves a republican function. Decisions by the representatives of the people are to be made. Accordingly it is to be discharged, in the first instance, by the political branches, the legislature and governor, not the courts. Decisions regarding water and land resources of the State are obviously best made at the statewide level. And with limited resources and statewide problems or issues regarding the Public Trust, decisions about whether to take action, and, if so, what action to take, involves the balancing of costs and benefits that is allocated to the political branches, in the first instance. The courts have recognized this in other cases of great importance. In Hughes v. State of Oregon, 314 Or 1, 33 n 36, 838 P 2d 1018 (1992) the Court commented that even if the court had inherent authority to fashion a remedy for the breach of a statutory contract relating to public employment retirement benefits, it would decline to do so as the legislature was the most appropriate branch of government in the first instance to choose among the available remedies. Indeed, this case presents, potentially, very difficult balancing of public costs and public benefits. The type of action that the plaintiffs seek to have the court order could well violate the covenants and restrictions that LOC or its predecessor put in place to protect what it considered to be important private concerns. Such concerns may, and often do, have to yield in the face of overriding public concerns. I-Iowever, the adjustment of the two sets of concerns and the potential for any adjustment to involve expenditure of funds of the State, in the City and other communities in the state, is for the legislature and not the courts. The State may act by legislation in the creation or expansion of the duties of administrative agencies to implement such legislation. There may already be agencies authorized to consider condemnation of property interests where such acquisition by the state is considered appropriate in connection with the Public Trust Doctrine. In each such forum and at each of those steps, plaintiffs and others may bring their concerns to those involved in the formulation of policy for the State. Those are the proper routes to follow either as to application of the Public Trust Doctrine or other action to acquire access for the public to Lake Oswego. The reasoning of this court as to the Public Trust Doctrine applies with equal or greater force as to the Public Use Doctrine. That doctrine is no broader in scope than the Public Trust Doctrine and may be narrower. Public Use Doctrine cases have generally involved the Kramer & Prager v. City of Lake Oswego et al. No. CV Page 6 of 7
8 Jan :26 No P. 8/8 HENRY C. BREITHAUPT Judge Pro Tern Fax: adjustment of disputes between or among private persons with competing navigational or recreational rights or, in some cases such as Weise v. Smith, 3 Or 445 (1869), between users of water and upland owners. They have not involved or led to the imposition of duties on the trustee under the Public Trust Doctrine. For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is denied, the motion for partial summary judgment of plaintiffs is denied and the motions for summary judgment of LOC, the City and the State are granted. Counsel for the City is directed to submit an appropriate form of order and judgment. Very Truly Yours, Henry C. Breitha pt Judge Kramer Prager v. City of Lake o et al. No. CV Page 7 of 7
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
No. 201 May 3, 2017 181 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Mark KRAMER and Todd Prager, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO; and the State of Oregon, by and through the State Land
More informationCase 3:12-cv HA Document 34 Filed 10/11/12 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#: 194
Case 3:12-cv-00927-HA Document 34 Filed 10/11/12 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#: 194 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION MARK KRAMER and TODD PRAGER, Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:12-cv-00927-HA
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON TIM REEVES, ERIC SAUB, GREG BURNETT, CARLA PEALER, as the LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OREGON, AND DAVID TERRY, M CARLING, and RICHARD BURKE, as members of the LIBERTARIAN
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON DR 10, UE 88, UM 989
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON DR 10, UE 88, UM 989 In the Matters of The Application of Portland General Electric Company for an Investigation into Least Cost Plan Plant Retirement, (DR
More information558 March 28, 2019 No. 15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
558 March 28, 2019 No. 15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON John S. FOOTE, Mary Elledge, and Deborah Mapes-Stice, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. STATE OF OREGON, Defendant-Appellant. (CC 17CV49853)
More informationCase 3:17-cv PK Document 9 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 11
Case 3:17-cv-00045-PK Document 9 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 11 Steven D. Olson, OSB No. 003410 Direct Telephone: 503.802.2159 Direct Fax: 503.972.3859 E-mail: steven.olson@tonkon.com Ryan M. Bledsoe, OSB
More informationHAROLD P. STURGEON, Plaintiff and Petitioner, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants and Respondents, and
S190318 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAROLD P. STURGEON, Plaintiff and Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants and Respondents, and SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH
1 1 1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON COLUMBIA RIVERKEEPER, a Washington non-profit corporation, NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER, an Oregon non-profit corporation, and MARK RISKEDAHL,
More informationiiryi?'.åyi""h!?lj By Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Mr. Doug Decker, State Forester Department of Forestry
iiryi?'.åyi""h!?lj Suite 2400 1300 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97201-5610 John Dilorenzo, Jr. 503.778.5216tel 503.', ',t\.5299 fax johndilorenzo@dwt.com By Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Honorable
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION. Civil Action Number C2: JUDGE SMITH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION PATRICIA RAY, Plaintiffs, -vs. THE FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS Civil Action Number C2:08-1086 JUDGE SMITH MAGISTRATE
More informationIN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF IOWA FOUNDATION, and LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS OF IOWA, CASE NO. CV009311 vs. Petitioners, RULING ON MOTION FOR
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
// ::0 PM CV 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH OREGON PUBLIC BROADCASTING, a public benefit corporation, v. Plaintiff, PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, a public entity,
More informationCase 1:19-cv REB Document 1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:19-cv-00040-REB Document 1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 1 of 10 Elijah M. Watkins, ISB No. 8977 E-mail: elijah.watkins@stoel.com Wendy J. Olson, ISB No. 7634 E-mail: wendy.olson@stoel.com Anna E. Courtney,
More informationConstitution. Statutes. Administrative Rules. Common Law
Constitution Statutes Administrative Rules Common Law Drafters / Ratifiers Ratification Constitution Legislatures Enactment Statutes Administrative Agencies Promulgation Administrative Rules Courts Opinion
More informationPetition for Writ of Certiorari filed September 30, 1996, denied October 23, Released for Publication October 28, 1996.
1 MONTANO V. LOS ALAMOS COUNTY, 1996-NMCA-108, 122 N.M. 454, 926 P.2d 307 CHARLES MONTANO and JOE GUTIERREZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. LOS ALAMOS COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee. Docket No. 16,982 COURT OF
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL: 05/27/2011 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationUnited States v. Ohio
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2015-2016 United States v. Ohio Hannah R. Seifert Alexander Blewett III School of Law at the University of Montana, hannah.seifert@umontana.edu
More informationCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
DISTRICT COURT, TELLER COUNTY, COLORADO 101 W. Bennett Avenue, Cripple Creek, Colorado 80813 Plaintiff: LEONARDO CANSECO SALINAS, v. Defendant: JASON MIKESELL, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Teller
More informationCTAS e-li. Published on e-li ( January 03, 2019 Requirements of the Open Meetings Act
Published on e-li (http://ctas-eli.ctas.tennessee.edu) January 03, 2019 Requirements of the Open Meetings Act Dear Reader: The following document was created from the CTAS electronic library known as e-li.
More informationCTAS e-li. Published on e-li (https://eli.ctas.tennessee.edu) June 26, 2018 Open Meetings Act (Sunshine Law)
Published on e-li (https://eli.ctas.tennessee.edu) June 26, 2018 Open Meetings Act (Sunshine Law) Dear Reader: The following document was created from the CTAS electronic library known as e-li. This online
More informationCase 3:16-cv SB Document 13-1 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:16-cv-00743-SB Document 13-1 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 5 Per A. Ramfjord, OSB No. 934024 per.ramford@stoel.com Kennon Scott, OSB No. 144280 kennon.scott@stoel.com STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue,
More informationCase 1:12-cv MCA-RHS Document 20 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Case 1:12-cv-00421-MCA-RHS Document 20 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO JOHN W. JACKSON and 2ND ) AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) )
More informationIN THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR WASATCH COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
Michael D. Zimmerman (3604) Troy L. Booher (9419) Erin Bergeson Hull (11674) ZIMMERMAN JONES BOOHER LLC Kearns Building, Suite 721 136 South Main Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 mzimmerman@zjbappeals.com
More informationSTATE OF TEXAS PETITION IN INTERVENTION. The State of Texas files this Petition in Intervention pursuant to
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-15-003492 CITY OF AUSTIN IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, v. TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT; INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS OWNERS WHO OWN C1 VACANT LAND OR F1 COMMERCIAL
More information10/30/2017 7:04 PM 17CV47399 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PARTIES
/0/ :0 PM CV 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH FREEDOM FOUNDATION, a Washington nonprofit corporation, v. Plaintiff, CITY OF PORTLAND, an Oregon municipal corporation,
More informationSTATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ITHACA CITY COURT : SMALL CLAIMS. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, DECISION Docket No.
STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ITHACA CITY COURT : SMALL CLAIMS THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, v DECISION Docket No. 05-43416 Defendant. Defendant is charged with violation of 9
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON UM I. INTRODUCTION The Oregon Citizens Utility Board and the Alliance of Western Energy Consumers
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON UM 1909 In the Matter of PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON, Investigation of the Scope of the Commission s Authority to Defer Capital Costs. JOINT INTERVENORS
More informationMOTION TO DISMISS COLORADO OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION S AND AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE S JOINT COMPLAINT
District Court, Boulder County, Colorado 1777 6 th St., Boulder, CO 80302 Plaintiffs: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO ex rel. CYNTHIA H. COFFMAN, in her official capacity as Colorado Attorney General;
More informationCase 2:17-cv MJP Document 238 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 8
Case :-cv-0-mjp Document Filed 0/0/ Page of The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE RYAN KARNOSKI, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 3:06-cv JSW Document 203 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 1 of 6
Case :0-cv-00-JSW Document 0 Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 R. Scott Jerger (pro hac vice (Oregon State Bar #0 Field Jerger LLP 0 SW Alder Street, Suite 0 Portland, OR 0 Tel: (0 - Fax: (0-0 Email: scott@fieldjerger.com
More information3 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 4 FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON. 5 KEVIN MCLOUGHLIN, an individual, Case No. 13CV01653.
1 2 3 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 4 FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON 5 KEVIN MCLOUGHLIN, an individual, 6 Plaintiff, 7 V. 8 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES, INC., an Oregon nonprofit corporation,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH PORTLAND METROPOLITAN ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, a Domestic Nonprofit Corporation; HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PORTLAND,
More informationCase 3:02-cv JE Document 32 Filed 07/24/02 Page 1 of 12
Case :0-cv-00-JE Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON NIKE USA, INC., ) ) Civil No. 0--JE Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) DAUNTE CULPEPPER, ) OPINION & ORDER
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed April 2, 2019. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-18-00413-CV ARI-ARMATUREN USA, LP, AND ARI MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellants V. CSI INTERNATIONAL,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:10-cv-00059-WDM-MEH Document 6 Filed 03/01/10 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 10-CV-00059-WDM-MEH GRAY PETERSON, Plaintiff,
More informationCase 2:16-cv JCZ-JVM Document 6 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:16-cv-13733-JCZ-JVM Document 6 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA WAYNE ANDERSON CIVIL ACTION JENNIFER ANDERSON VERSUS NO. 2:16-cv-13733 JERRY
More informationCase 3:14-cv REP-AWA-BMK Document 146 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID# 5723
Case 3:14-cv-00852-REP-AWA-BMK Document 146 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID# 5723 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION Golden Bethune-Hill, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 3:15-cv AWT Document 55 Filed 06/23/16 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : : : : : : :
Case 3:15-cv-01182-AWT Document 55 Filed 06/23/16 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT -------------------------------- x MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL : GAMING DEVELOPMENT,
More informationDISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO. Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 Plaintiff: JOHN GLEASON, in his official capacity as Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel vs.
More informationCase 0:07-cv JMR-FLN Document 41 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Case 0:07-cv-01789-JMR-FLN Document 41 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Minneapolis Taxi Owners Coalition, Inc., Civil No. 07-1789 (JMR/FLN) Plaintiff, v.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
QVC, INC. v. SCHIEFFELIN et al Doc. 10 Case 2:06-cv-04231-TON Document 10 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : QVC, INC. : Studio
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 1:17-cv-00100-YK Document 29 Filed 04/04/17 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GREGORY J. HARTNETT, ELIZABETH M. GALASKA, ROBERT G. BROUGH, JR., and
More informationProfessor of Law William S. Richardson School of Law UNIVERSITY OF KAWAI'" I AT MANOA 2515 Dole Street Honolulu, Hawai'i 96822
JON M. VAN DYKE Professor of Law William S. Richardson School of Law UNIVERSITY OF KAWAI'" I AT MANOA 2515 Dole Street Honolulu, Hawai'i 96822 Tel: 808-956-8509 Fax: 808-956-5569 Email: jvandyke@hawaii.edu
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 104,761. DOWNTOWN BAR AND GRILL, LLC, Appellee, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 104,761 DOWNTOWN BAR AND GRILL, LLC, Appellee, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. discretion. An appellate court reviews the grant or
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON DR 10, UE 88, UM 989
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON DR 10, UE 88, UM 989 In the Matters of The Application of Portland General Electric Company for an Investigation into Least Cost Plan Plant Retirement, (DR
More informationSTATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 100 North Carson Street Carson City, Nevada MEMORANDUM
#14 D ADAM PAUL LAXALT Attorney General J. BRIN GIBSON First Assistant Attorney General STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 100 North Carson Street Carson City, Nevada 89701 NICHOLAS A. TRUTANICH
More informationCase 2:16-at Document 1 Filed 05/26/16 Page 1 of 10
Case :-at-00 Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC BRADLEY A. BENBROOK (SBN ) STEPHEN M. DUVERNAY (SBN 0) 00 Capitol Mall, Suite 0 Sacramento, CA Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: () -0 brad@benbrooklawgroup.com
More informationTHE GOFUNDME #GoFundPDX CONTEST OFFICIAL RULES NO PURCHASE NECESSARY TO ENTER OR CLAIM PRIZE. A PURCHASE WILL NOT INCREASE YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING.
THE GOFUNDME #GoFundPDX CONTEST OFFICIAL RULES NO PURCHASE NECESSARY TO ENTER OR CLAIM PRIZE. A PURCHASE WILL NOT INCREASE YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING. THESE OFFICIAL RULES CONTAIN AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT,
More informationEminent Domain Report: IMMEDIATE POSSESSION HB Prepared by Wendy J. Johnson Oregon Law Commission Deputy Director
I. Introductory Summary Eminent Domain Report: IMMEDIATE POSSESSION HB 2269 Prepared by Wendy J. Johnson Oregon Law Commission Deputy Director From the Offices of the Executive Director David R. Kenagy
More informationMontana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation v. Abbco Investments LLC
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2012-2013 Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation v. Abbco Investments LLC William Fanning University of Montana School of Law,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NO D VICTOR DIMAIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NO. 08-13241-D VICTOR DIMAIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE Defendant/Appellee. APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE UNITED
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Rev. MARKEL HUTCHINS ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) CIVIL ACTION HON. NATHAN DEAL, Governor of the ) FILE NO. State of Georgia,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : VERIFIED COMPLAINT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA and DARRYL BONNER, Plaintiffs, v. CHARLES JUDD, KIMBERLY BOWERS, and DON PALMER,
More informationCase 4:05-cv HLM Document 47-3 Filed 10/18/2005 Page 16 of 30
Case 4:05-cv-00201-HLM Document 47-3 Filed 10/18/2005 Page 16 of 30 Because Plaintiffs' suit is against State officials, rather than the State itself, a question arises as to whether the suit is actually
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE KATURIA E. SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, V. THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON LAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE KATURIA E. SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, V. THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON LAW SCHOOL, et al., Defendants. NO. C97-335Z ORDER This matter
More informationCase 8:15-cv JLS-KES Document 43-4 Filed 07/25/17 Page 2 of 39 Page ID #:440 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RECITALS
Case 8:15-cv-01936-JLS-KES Document 43-4 Filed 07/25/17 Page 2 of 39 Page ID #:440 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement is made and entered into as of July 24, 2017, between (a) Plaintiff Jordan
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. SUSAN WATERS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees.
No. 15-1452 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT SUSAN WATERS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees. v. PETE RICKETTS, in his official capacity as Governor of Nebraska, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Melinda J. Davison (OR Bar No. 930572)± DAVISON VAN CLEVE, PC 333 SW Taylor St., Suite 400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 241-7242 (503) 241-8160 (fax) mjd@dvclaw.com Jeanette M. Petersen (WA Bar No. 28299)*
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH UTCR CONFERRAL STATEMENT
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH 0 LLOYD ANDERSON, PAIGE CRAFORD, and MILLARD CHRISTNER, v. Plaintiffs, CITY OF PORTLAND, an Oregon Municipal Corporation, Defendant.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 533 U. S. (2001) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 00 189 IDAHO, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT [June
More informationAssignment. Federal Question Jurisdiction. Text Problem Case: Louisville and Nashville Railroad v. Mottley
Assignment Federal Question Jurisdiction Text... 1-5 Problem.... 6-7 Case: Louisville and Nashville Railroad v. Mottley... 8-10 Statutes: 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1442(a), 1257 Federal Question Jurisdiction 28
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT United States of America, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, Case No. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona No. CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB
More informationCase 2:17-cv JMV-CLW Document 23 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 168..EruvLitigation.com
Case 2:17-cv-06054-JMV-CLW Document 23 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 168 Case 2:17-cv-06054-JMV-CLW Document 23 Filed 01/31/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 169 Case 2:17-cv-06054-JMV-CLW Document 23-1 Filed
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:10-cv-01062-ESH -TBG -HHK Document 46-1 Filed 08/20/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF GEORGIA, v. Plaintiff, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. in his official
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
REBECCA NIDAY, fka Rebecca Lewis, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON Filed: June, 01 Respondent on Review, v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE SERVICES,
More information2018COA107. A division of the court of appeals considers whether the. district court may consider documents outside the bare allegations
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS CIVIL DIVISION CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS CIVIL DIVISION ELECTRONICALLY FILED Pulaski County Circuit Court Larry Crane, Circuit/County Clerk 2018-Feb-18 18:02:06 60CV-18-379 C06D06 : 10 Pages CITY
More informationSTATE OF OREGON LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL COMMITTEE
Dexter A. Johnson LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL 900 COURT ST NE S101 SALEM, OREGON 97301-4065 (503) 986-1243 FAX: (503) 373-1043 www.oregonlegislature.gov/lc STATE OF OREGON LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL COMMITTEE Senator
More informationTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 John P. Kristensen (SBN David L. Weisberg (SBN Christina M. Le (SBN KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP 0 Beatrice St., Suite 00 Los Angeles, California 00 Telephone:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION KEVIN MURPHY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Case No. 3:16-cv-00521-SB Plaintiff, vs. PRECISION CASTPARTS
More informationDECISION Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, and Defendants Motion to Strike
Rock of Ages Corp. v. Bernier, No. 68-2-14 Wncv (Teachout, J., April 22, 2015) [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND. Defendant : COMPLAINT. Parties and Jurisdiction
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND SOUTHCOAST FAIR HOUSING, INC. : : Plaintiff : : v. : C.A. No. 18- : DEBRA SAUNDERS, in her official capacity as : Clerk of the Rhode Island
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA
January 3 2011 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 10-0533 LEONARD (DUKE) BROWN, Plaintiff and Appellant, V. YELLOWSTONE CLUB OPERATIONS, LLC, a Montana limited liability company, Defendant
More informationFiled: January 16, 2014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON Filed: January, 0 EVERICE MORO; TERRI DOMENIGONI; CHARLES CUSTER; JOHN HAWKINS; MICHAEL ARKEN; EUGENE DITTER; JOHN O'KIEF; MICHAEL SMITH; LANE JOHNSON; GREG
More informationFiled: January 16, 2014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON Filed: January, 0 EVERICE MORO; TERRI DOMENIGONI; CHARLES CUSTER; JOHN HAWKINS; MICHAEL ARKEN; EUGENE DITTER; JOHN O'KIEF; MICHAEL SMITH; LANE JOHNSON; GREG
More information281 Or App 76. No. 441 A156258
281 Or App 76 BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 48J, a public school district of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David B. WARD, as Successor Trustee of the Harold K. Ward Revocable Trust 12/17/92; David B. Ward
More informationCase 3:16-cv SB Document 1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 10
Case 3:16-cv-00743-SB Document 1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 10 Per A. Ramfjord, OSB No. 934024 per.ramford@stoel.com Kennon Scott, OSB No. 144280 kennon.scott@stoel.com STOEL RIVES LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue,
More informationCase 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:15-cv-09300 Document 1 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ALDER CROMWELL, and ) CODY KEENER, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. v. ) ) KRIS KOBACH,
More informationCase 3:16-cv DJH Document 91 Filed 08/16/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1189
Case 3:16-cv-00124-DJH Document 91 Filed 08/16/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1189 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff,
More informationMARCH 2017 LAW REVIEW GUN PERMITTEES CHALLENGE PARK FIREARM REGULATIONS
GUN PERMITTEES CHALLENGE PARK FIREARM REGULATIONS James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2016 James C. Kozlowski As illustrated by the state court opinions described herein, gun owner groups and individuals have
More informationCase: 1:12-cv Document #: 65 Filed: 05/10/13 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:2093
Case: 1:12-cv-05811 Document #: 65 Filed: 05/10/13 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:2093 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ILLINOIS LIBERTY PAC, a Political
More informationCase 1:09-cv KMM Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/27/2010 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:09-cv-23435-KMM Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/27/2010 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 09-23435-Civ-Moore/Simonton NATIONAL FRANCHISEE ASSOCIATION,
More informationCASE 0:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/06/18 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiff, Civil Case No.
CASE 0:18-cv-01895 Document 1 Filed 07/06/18 Page 1 of 14 KATHLEEN URADNIK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA v. Plaintiff, Civil Case No.: INTER FACULTY ORGANIZATION, ST. CLOUD
More informationCase 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 01/28/17 Page 1 of 7 SAN FRANCISCO
Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of East Bay Law Andrew W. Shalaby sbn Solano Avenue Albany, CA 0 Tel. --00 Fax: --0 email: andrew@eastbaylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs The People of the State of
More informationCase 3:17-cv JAG Document 41 Filed 02/21/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 258
Case 3:17-cv-00253-JAG Document 41 Filed 02/21/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 258 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION Edwin Epps, Olivia Torres and Richard Jones,
More informationConsumer Class Action Waivers Post-Concepcion
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Consumer Class Action Waivers Post-Concepcion Law360,
More informationIN THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT CAUSE NO.
Filed: 4/10/2017 1:44:37 PM IN THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT CAUSE NO. DON H. GUNDERSON AND BOBBIE J. ) GUNDERSON, CO-TRUSTEES OF THE ) DON H. GUNDERSON LIVING TRUST ) Appeal from the DATED NOVEMBER 14, 2006,
More informationCase 4:16-cv Y Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID 678
Case 4:16-cv-00810-Y Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID 678 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION 20/20 COMMUNICATIONS, INC. VS. Civil No.
More informationCase: 1:10-cv SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/01/10 Page: 1 of 21 PAGEID #: 1
Case 110-cv-00596-SJD Doc # 1 Filed 09/01/10 Page 1 of 21 PAGEID # 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION RALPH VANZANT 6947 Mountain View Drive Hillsboro, Ohio
More informationCase 3:16-cv LRH-WGC Document 92 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case :-cv-00-lrh-wgc Document Filed // Page of 0 Laura K. Granier, Esq. (NSB ) laura.granier@dgslaw.com 0 W. Liberty Street, Suite 0 Reno, Nevada 0 () -/ () 0- (Tel./Fax) Attorneys for Carlin Resources,
More informationCase 3:16-cv CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 9
Case 3:16-cv-00350-CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION NYKOLAS ALFORD and STEPHEN THOMAS; and ACLU
More informationCase 7:16-cv O Document 125 Filed 12/17/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID 2937
Case 7:16-cv-00108-O Document 125 Filed 12/17/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID 2937 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC.; SPECIALTY
More information17-cv-6293 (MAT) DECISION AND ORDER. Plaintiff JDS Group Ltd. ( JDS or plaintiff ) commenced the
JDS Group Ltd. v. Metal Supermarkets Franchising America Inc. Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JDS GROUP LTD., Plaintiff, -v- 17-cv-6293 (MAT) DECISION AND ORDER METAL
More information7/19/2018 6:06 PM 18CV30704 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH. Plaintiff WOF SW GGP 1 LLC alleges as follows:
// :0 PM CV00 1 1 1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON WOF SW GGP 1 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, v. Plaintiff, QUASAR ENERGY GROUP, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, FOR
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY
1 1 1 1 1 0 1 BRETT BASS, an individual; SWAN SEABERG, an individual; THE SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., a Washington non-profit corporation; and NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.; a New
More informationConnecticut Multiple Listing Service, Inc.
Connecticut Multiple Listing Service, Inc. DATA ACCESS AGREEMENT CTMLS 127 Washington Avenue West Building, 2 nd floor North Haven, CT 06473 203-234-7001 203-234-7151 (fax) www.ctstatewidemls.com 1 DATA
More informationAttorneys for Plaintiff Regina Bozic, the Proposed Classes, and the Appeals Class (See FRAP 3(c)(3))
Case :-cv-00-bas-mdd Document Filed 0/0/ PageID. Page of LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON RONALD A. MARRON (SBN 0) ron@consumersadvocates.com MICHAEL T. HOUCHIN (SBN 0) Arroyo Drive San Diego, California
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA --ELECTRONICALLY FILED--
Case 1:17-cv-00100-YK Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GREGORY J. HARTNETT, ELIZABETH M. GALASKA, ROBERT G. BROUGH, JR., and JOHN
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON UE and OAR , and by this Petition asks the Public Utility Commission of
Joshua D. Johnson (OSB No. 106893) RACINE, OLSON, NYE, BUDGE & BAILEY, CHARTERED 101 South Capitol Blvd., Suite 300 Boise, Idaho 83702 Telephone: (208) 395-0011 Fax: (208) 433-0167 E-mail: jdj@racinelaw.net
More informationCase 1:16-cv RJL Document 114 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cv-00236-RJL Document 114 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ALABAMA,
More information