UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Appellants-Plaintiffs, V. CASE NO Appellee-Defendant, Appellee-Intervenor-Defendant.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Appellants-Plaintiffs, V. CASE NO Appellee-Defendant, Appellee-Intervenor-Defendant."

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al., Appellants-Plaintiffs, V. CASE NO JON HUSTED, in his Official Capacity as Ohio Secretary of State, and THE STATE OF OHIO, Appellee-Defendant, Appellee-Intervenor-Defendant. / APPELLANTS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS OF APPELLEES-DEFENDANTS' JON HUSTED AND STATE OF OHIO Mark Kafantaris Mark R. Brown 625 City Park Avenue 303 E. Broad Street Columbus, Ohio Columbus, Ohio (614) (614) (614) (fax) (614) mark@kafantaris.com mbrown@law.capital.edu Attorneys for Appellants

2 Sixth Circuit Case Number: Name of counsel: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Disclosure of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interest Case Name: Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted Pursuant to 6th Cir. R. 26.1, Libertarian Party of Ohio, et al., makes the following disclosure: Name of Party 1. Is said party a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly owned corporation? If Yes, list below the identity of the parent corporation or affiliate and the relationship between it and the named party: No. Mark R. Brown 2. Is there a publicly owned corporation, not a party to the appeal, that has a financial interest in the outcome? If yes, list the identity of such corporation and the nature of the financial interest: No. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 20, 2015 the foregoing document was served on all parties or their counsel of record through the CM/ECF system if they are registered users or, if they are not, by placing a true and correct copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to their address of record. s/ Mark R. Brown This statement is filed twice: when the appeal is initially opened and later, in the principal briefs, immediately preceding the table of contents. See 6th Cir. R on page 2 of this form. 6CA-1 8/08 Page 1 of 2

3 6th Cir. R DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND FINANCIAL INTEREST (a) Parties Required to Make Disclosure. With the exception of the United States government or agencies thereof or a state government or agencies or political subdivisions thereof, all parties and amici curiae to a civil or bankruptcy case, agency review proceeding, or original proceedings, and all corporate defendants in a criminal case shall file a corporate affiliate/financial interest disclosure statement. A negative report is required except in the case of individual criminal defendants. (b) Financial Interest to Be Disclosed. (1) Whenever a corporation that is a party to an appeal, or which appears as amicus curiae, is a subsidiary or affiliate of any publicly owned corporation not named in the appeal, counsel for the corporation that is a party or amicus shall advise the clerk in the manner provided by subdivision (c) of this rule of the identity of the parent corporation or affiliate and the relationship between it and the corporation that is a party or amicus to the appeal. A corporation shall be considered an affiliate of a publicly owned corporation for purposes of this rule if it controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a publicly owned corporation. (2) Whenever, by reason of insurance, a franchise agreement, or indemnity agreement, a publicly owned corporation or its affiliate, not a party to the appeal, nor an amicus, has a substantial financial interest in the outcome of litigation, counsel for the party or amicus whose interest is aligned with that of the publicly owned corporation or its affiliate shall advise the clerk in the manner provided by subdivision (c) of this rule of the identity of the publicly owned corporation and the nature of its or its affiliate's substantial financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. (c) Form and Time of Disclosure. The disclosure statement shall be made on a form provided by the clerk and filed with the brief of a party or amicus or upon filing a motion, response, petition, or answer in this Court, whichever first occurs. 6CA-1 8/08 Page 2 of 2

4 I. Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Tolls the Time to Appeal. Appellees argue that a motion to modify a District Court's judgment to certify that there is "no just reason for delay" cannot qualify as a post-judgment motion within the meaning of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4). See Motion to Dismiss of Appellees-Defendants Jon Husted and State of Ohio (hereinafter "Motion to Dismiss"), Sixth Circuit Doc. No. 12 at 3. They cite Cobel v. Jewell, 802 F.3d 12, 19 (D.C. Cir. 2015), Goodman v. Johnson, 471 Fed Appx. 114, 115 (4th Cir. 2012), and Schaeffer v. National Bank of Lincolnwood, 465 F.2d 234, 236 (7th Cir. 1972), for this proposition. None of these cases, however, involved a timely motion to modify a judgment to certify that "no just reason for delay" existed to prohibit an immediate appeal. All three cases addressed motions for reconsideration, which under Rule 54(b) can be filed at "any time." This Court has noted that a timely motion to modify a judgment to certify it under Rule 54(b) tolls the time for appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. In Gillis v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 759 F.2d 565, 569 n.4 (6 th Cir. 1985), the Court discussed whether then-recent amendment to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) that preserved appeals that had been filed before resolutions of certain motions saved the appeal at hand. It concluded it did not, stating: Nor does Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4), as amended in 1979, which provides that notices of appeal filed during the pendency of Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), 52(b) 1

5 and 59 post-trial motions, shall have no effect, mandate a different result. No such motions are involved here. No request to have the judgment certified under rule 54(b) was made. Id. at 569 n.4. Had a request for certification under Rule 54(b) been made, the time for appeal would have tolled. The three cases relied upon by Appellees were all cases involving or discussing motions for reconsideration under Rule 54(b). In Cobel v. Jewell, 802 F.3d 12, 19 (D.C. Cir. 2015), for example, the plaintiffs had sought reconsideration under Rule 54(b), and then subsequently sought to appeal a denial of that motion. The government, in response, argued that the plaintiffs' appeal was untimely, because it sought a reconsideration under Rule 54(b) rather than expressly under Rule 59(e). Id. at 19. The Court of appeals disagreed with this argument; whether Rule 54(b) or Rule 59(e) was cited was not determinative. Id. at 20. In the course of ruling that the appeal there was proper, the Court observed that Rule 54(b) claims for reconsideration may be filed at "any time." Id. "Because Rule 54(b) operates while a case is still ongoing in district court and before any appealable final judgment has been entered, such motions for reconsideration, of course, do not toll the time for taking an appeal because the clock has not even started ticking." Id. (emphasis added). The Court was simply pointing out that garden variety Rule 54(b) motions for reconsideration -- which can be made at any time -- do not toll the time for appeal. This is a far cry from arguing that motions to 2

6 modify and certify final judgments for immediate appeal do not toll the time for appeal. The Court said no such thing. No Court has. Schaeffer v. National Bank of Lincolnwood, 465 F. 2d 234, 236 (7th Cir. 1972), also involved a motion for reconsideration under Rule 54(b). Indeed, the motion for reconsideration in that case was filed several months after the initial judgment, rendering it plainly untimely under Rule 59(e). Id. at 235. It could not have been a Rule 59 motion. Because the Rule 54(b) motion for reconsideration was filed so late, the Seventh Circuit ruled it did not toll the appellate clock: "We believe that the lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiffs in seeking the Rule 54(b) order they eventually obtained, together with the passage of such a substantial expanse of time between our dismissal and the district court's order, is sufficient, without more, to warrant our dismissal of the present appeal." Id. at Even though it was a motion for reconsideration, had the plaintiffs sought the Rule 54(b) order in a more timely fashion, the outcome might have been different. Goodman v. Johnson, 471 Fed. Appx. 114, 115 (4th Cir. 2012), likewise involved a motion for reconsideration under Rule 54(b). The plaintiff sought to appeal the District Court's "denying his motion seeking reconsideration of th[e] dismissal" of his complaint. Id. at *1. The case had nothing to do with a motion to 3

7 modify, let alone a timely motion to certify the matter for appeal as a final judgment. By way of sharp contrast, Plaintiffs/Appellants here did not seek reconsideration under Rule 54(b). Plaintiffs moved the District Court to modify its Opinion and Order to certify that there was "no just reason" to delay an immediate appeal. See McIntyre v. First National Bank of Cincinnati, 585 F.2d 190, 191 (6th Cir. 1978) (recognizing that party may move the court to find "no just reason for delay"). Rule 54(b) was invoked to support modification because that is the pertinent rule allowing certification. Plaintiffs did not request "reconsideration" in any shape or form. Their motion was filed well within the time required for modification under Rule 59(e). Last, and most importantly, the District Court expressly recognized Plaintiffs' motion as one to modify its prior Opinion and Order when it directed Defendants to respond by November 6, See Doc. No. 343 at PAGEID # 8746 (Order) ("Secretary Husted and the State of Ohio's response to Plaintiffs' motion to modify shall be filed November 6,2015") (emphasis added). II. Motions to Modify Need Not Refer to Rule 59. Appellees fail to cite a single authority for the proposition that a timely motion to modify a judgment to certify that there is "no just reason for delay" 4

8 under Rule 54(b) does not toll Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4's time. No such authority exists. The reason is simple. Courts across the country have unanimously ruled that motions to modify judgments qualify under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) regardless of whether they cite Rule 59. Appellees argue that "[t]o alter or amend a judgment, a party must file a motion under Civil Rule 59(e)." Motion to Dismiss, Sixth Circuit Doc. No. 12 at 4. Appellees are wrong. The commentary to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a)(4) makes this clear. It states that its 1993 Amendment "comports with the practice in several circuits of treating all motions to alter or amend judgments that are made within 10 days after entry of judgment as Rule 59(e) motions for purposes of Rule 4(a)(4)." See (last visited November 24, 2015) (citing Finch v. City of Vernon, 845 F.2d 256 (11th Cir. 1988); Rados v. Celotex Corp., 809 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1986); Skagerberg v. Oklahoma, 797 F.2d 881 (10th Cir. 1986)). The Advisory Committee notes could have included Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, (9 th Cir. 1984), which stated that "[w]e have consistently held that if a motion is served within ten days of judgment and it could have been brought under Rule 59(e), it tolls the time for appeal although it does not expressly invoke Rule 59." Sierra On-Line has been relied 5

9 upon by this Court. See Wackenhut Corp. v. Guardsmark, 856 F.2d 197 (6 th Cir. 1988). This Court, moreover, has stated that "a timely motion to modify or amend an order generally tolls the time for filing a notice of appeal." United States v. Hill, 95 F.3d 1153, *1 (6th Cir. 1996). Contrary to Appellees' argument, the reality is that motions to modify judgments filed within the time constraints of Rule 59 have uniformly been held to toll the time for appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a). This is true even when they do not cite Rule 59. The Advisory Committee Notes to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) acknowledge that this is precisely what the framers of Rule 4(a)(4) had in mind. There is no contrary authority. Here, the District Court understood Plaintiffs' motion as one to "modify" its judgment. It was not referred to as a motion for reconsideration or anything else. It was a timely motion to modify, filed within nine days of the District Court's Opinion and Order. Plaintiffs could have supported it by citing to Rule 59(e) as well as Rule 54(b). But they were under no obligation to cite Rule 59. The District Court was fully aware of what the motion sought to do. Simply put, a timely motion to modify tolls the limitations period under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 regardless of whether it cites Rule 59. Appellees cite no authority to the contrary. 6

10 III. Appellants Were Not Required to Immediately Appeal an Interlocutory Decision. Appellees assert that because interlocutory jurisdiction over the District Court's Opinion and Order "was proper under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1)," Motion to Dismiss, Sixth Circuit Doc. No. 12 at 3, and "[b]ecause the order was immediately appealable, the Party was required to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of its entry." Id. Appellees are incorrect. Assuming that the interlocutory decision rendered by the District Court were immediately appealable under Graves v. Mahoning County, 534 Fed. Appx. 399, 403 (6th Cir. 2013), and Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84 (1981) - - which Plaintiffs/Appellants believe is true and Appellees now apparently concede -- they were under no obligation to take the interlocutory appeal. See Weaver v. University of Cincinnati, 970 F.2d 1523, 1538 (6th Cir. 1992) (holding that parties are under no obligation to take interlocutory appeals). Plaintiffs/Appellants had every right to seek a modification of the decision to certify it for appeal as if from final judgment. Plaintiffs did not take an immediate interlocutory appeal from the October 14, 2015 decision of the District Court for a simple reason; appellate jurisdiction over the dismissal of Count Five, the Ohio constitutional claim, was not patently clear given the posture of the case. While the denial of relief under Count Four, the federal constitutional claim, plainly fits within the meaning of Graves v. Mahoning 7

11 County, 534 Fed. Appx. 399, 403 (6th Cir. 2013), and Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84 (1981), a dismissal of a state constitutional claim under the Eleventh Amendment is not nearly so obvious. Research revealed to Plaintiffs that a more certain path to appeal the dismissal of a claim under the Eleventh Amendment was Rule 54(b) certification. See Carter v. City of Philadelphia, 181 F.3d 339, 346 (3d Cir. 1999) (holding that Rule 54(b) certification of dismissal under Eleventh Amendment was proper). Therefore, Plaintiffs/Appellants moved to modify the decision to certify it for appeal as a final judgment. IV. Rule 4(a)(4) Tolls the Time for Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), entitled "Effect of a Motion on a Notice of Appeal," states that "the time to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion" filed with the District Court to "alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59." As explained above, these motions to modify need not be filed under Rule 59. They simply need to be timely motions to modify. Regardless of whether Plaintiffs could have taken an immediate interlocutory appeal, they did not. They were not required to. Instead, they filed a timely motion to modify. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A), this timely motion tolls the time for filing their interlocutory appeal from "the entry 8

12 of the order disposing of the" motion. Courts have routinely applied Rule 4(a)(4)(A) to interlocutory appeals in the same fashion that it applies to appeals from final judgments. Lichtenberg v. Besicorp Group, Inc., 204 F.3d 397, 401 (2d Cir. 2000). V. Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal Will Take Effect When the District Court Rules on Their Motion to Modify. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(B)(i) states that "[i]f a party files a notice of appeal after the court announces or enters a judgment but before it disposes of any motion listed in Rule 4(a)(4)(A) the notice becomes effective to appeal a judgment or order, in whole or in part, when the order disposing of the last such remaining motion is entered." Consequently, should the District Court deny Plaintiffs' motion to amend, Plaintiffs' notice of appeal will take effect on that date. Plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal under Counts Four and Five, which Appellees conceded could have been taken immediately, will ripen. Should the District Court grant Plaintiffs' motion to modify and certify their appeal under Rule 54(b), Plaintiffs appeal of Counts Four and/or Five will likewise ripen under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(B)(i). Either way, Plaintiffs' appeal will properly ripen with the District Court's resolution of Plaintiffs' motion to modify. CONCLUSION Appellees' motion to dismiss should be DENIED. 9

13 Respectfully submitted, s/mark R. Brown Mark Kafantaris Mark R. Brown 625 City Park Avenue 303 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio Columbus, OH (614) (614) (614) (fax) (614) (fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this Response was filed using the Court's electronic filing system and that copies of this First Amended Complaint will be automatically served on all parties of record through the Court's electronic filing system. s/mark R. Brown Mark R. Brown CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a)(5) & (6) I hereby certify that this Response complies with the typeface limitations found in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) & (6) in that the type-face is proportionally spaced 14-point Times New Roman type. s/mark R. Brown 10

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT : : : : : : : : : : : : :

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 15-4270 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, ET AL., v. Appellants-Plaintiffs, JON HUSTED, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE, v.

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. v. No Appellee-Intervenor-Defendant.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. v. No Appellee-Intervenor-Defendant. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, KEVIN KNEDLER, CHARLES EARL, AARON HARRIS, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. No. 14-3230 JON HUSTED, in his Official Capacity as

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 3 Filed: 09/26/13 Page: 1 of 11 PAGEID #: 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al. Plaintiffs, Case

More information

Case: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883

Case: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883 Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883 LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al., and ROBERT HART, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Case: 16-3746 Document: 33 Filed: 07/20/2016 Page: 1 No. 16-3746 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT OHIO A PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE; NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS;

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-3452 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Respondent-Appellant. Appeal From

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ALEXIS DEGELMANN, et al., ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS INC.,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ALEXIS DEGELMANN, et al., ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS INC., Case: 10-15222 11/14/2011 ID: 7963092 DktEntry: 45-2 Page: 1 of 17 No. 10-15222 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEXIS DEGELMANN, et al., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, ADVANCED

More information

Case: Document: 6 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pages: 6 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case: Document: 6 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pages: 6 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-3766 NAPERVILLE SMART METER AWARENESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NAPERVILLE, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #18-1085 Document #1725473 Filed: 04/05/2018 Page 1 of 15 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES AGAINST TOXICS,

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #17-1145 Document #1679553 Filed: 06/14/2017 Page 1 of 14 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, EARTHWORKS, ENVIRONMENTAL

More information

Part Description 1 10 pages 2 Exhibit Consent Decree 3 Affidavit Knedler 4 Affidavit Harris 5 Affidavit Earl 6 Affidavit Redpath

Part Description 1 10 pages 2 Exhibit Consent Decree 3 Affidavit Knedler 4 Affidavit Harris 5 Affidavit Earl 6 Affidavit Redpath Libertarian Party of Ohio et al v. Husted, Docket No. 2:13-cv-00953 (S.D. Ohio Sept 25, 2013), Court Docket Part Description 1 10 pages 2 Exhibit Consent Decree 3 Affidavit Knedler 4 Affidavit Harris 5

More information

Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 98 Filed: 11/26/14 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 6215

Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 98 Filed: 11/26/14 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 6215 Case: 2:14-cv-00404-PCE-NMK Doc #: 98 Filed: 11/26/14 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 6215 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION OHIO STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case: 14-80121 09/11/2014 ID: 9236871 DktEntry: 4 Page: 1 of 13 Docket No. 14-80121 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit MICHAEL A. COBB, v. CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA, IN RE: CITY OF

More information

Case Nos , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., ILLUMINA, INC.,

Case Nos , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., ILLUMINA, INC., Case Nos. 2016-2388, 2017-1020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., v. ILLUMINA, INC., ANDREI IANCU, Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Appellant, Appellee,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 15a0061p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT SLEP-TONE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No John Teixeira; et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No John Teixeira; et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, Case: 13-17132 03/31/2014 ID: 9037376 DktEntry: 22-1 Page: 1 of 7 (1 of 21) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 13-17132 John Teixeira; et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. County of

More information

Case: 2:15-cv GCS-EPD Doc #: 34 Filed: 07/07/16 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 1066

Case: 2:15-cv GCS-EPD Doc #: 34 Filed: 07/07/16 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 1066 Case 215-cv-03061-GCS-EPD Doc # 34 Filed 07/07/16 Page 1 of 6 PAGEID # 1066 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION SHELBI HINDEL, et al., Case No. 215-cv-3061 Plaintiffs,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN RUTHELLE FRANK, et al., v. SCOTT WALKER, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 11-CV-1128 Defendants. LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS OF WISCONSIN,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #14-5319 Document #1537233 Filed: 02/11/2015 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) In Re, Kellogg, Brown And Root, Inc., ) et al., ) ) Petitioners,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 07-56424 08/24/2009 Page: 1 of 6 DktEntry: 7038488 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT M. NELSON, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 07-56424 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS

More information

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, CHARLES D.

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, CHARLES D. Appellate Case: 17-4059 Document: 01019889341 01019889684 Date Filed: 10/23/2017 Page: 1 No. 17-4059 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 07-56424 06/08/2009 Page: 1 of 7 DktEntry: 6949062 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT M. NELSON, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 07-56424 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS

More information

Case No IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit DAVID JOHN SLATER, WILDLIFE PERSONALITIES, LTD.,

Case No IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit DAVID JOHN SLATER, WILDLIFE PERSONALITIES, LTD., Case: 16-15469, 06/15/2018, ID: 10910417, DktEntry: 64, Page 1 of 10 Case No. 16-15469 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit NARUTO, A CRESTED MACAQUE, BY AND THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIENDS,

More information

CLERK UF ta(3urf SIIPREME COURT OF OHIO

CLERK UF ta(3urf SIIPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO THE DISPATCH PRINTING CO., et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees, Case No. 11-1006 -vs-. On Appeal From The Court Of Appeals Of Franklin County, Ohio, RECOVERY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case: 13-1564 Document: 138 140 Page: 1 Filed: 03/10/2015 2013-1564 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS AKTIEBOLOG AND SCA PERSONAL CARE INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

More information

Case: Document: Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Filed: September 04, 2012

Case: Document: Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Filed: September 04, 2012 Case: 12-4055 Document: 006111420965 Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 1 Deborah S. Hunt Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE

More information

JOHN TEIXEIRA, et al., Appellants, vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Appellees. Northern District of California REHEARING EN BANG

JOHN TEIXEIRA, et al., Appellants, vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Appellees. Northern District of California REHEARING EN BANG Case: 13-17132, 07/27/2016, ID: 10065825, DktEntry: 81, Page 1 of 26 Appellate Case No.: 13-17132 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN TEIXEIRA, et al., Appellants, vs. COUNTY

More information

Case: Document: 15 Filed: 07/06/2016 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Filed: July 06, 2016

Case: Document: 15 Filed: 07/06/2016 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Filed: July 06, 2016 Case: 16-3746 Document: 15 Filed: 07/06/2016 Page: 1 Deborah S. Hunt Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE CINCINNATI,

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 04-16621 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC., AND PLANNED PARENTHOOD GOLDEN GATE, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney

More information

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 16-16269, 11/03/2016, ID: 10185588, DktEntry: 14-2, Page 1 of 17 No. 16-16269 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THE CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER, on behalf of

More information

FEDERAL COURTS COMMITTEE OF THE NEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

FEDERAL COURTS COMMITTEE OF THE NEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE Vincent T. Chang Co-Chair Hon. Joseph Kevin McKay Co-Chair Federal Courts Committee February 12, 2015 FEDERAL COURTS COMMITTEE OF THE NEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1492 Document #1696614 Filed: 10/03/2017 Page 1 of 9 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) SIERRA CLUB,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No John Teixeira; et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No John Teixeira; et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, Case: 13-17132 06/16/2014 ID: 9133029 DktEntry: 37-1 Page: 1 of 6 (1 of 7) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 13-17132 John Teixeira; et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. County of Alameda;

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Case: 2:14-cv-01843-GCS-CMV Doc #: 78 Filed: 06/29/17 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 892 STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. MICHAEL DeWINE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN

More information

Case: Document: Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2017. No United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Case: Document: Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2017. No United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Case: 15-1804 Document: 003112677643 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2017 No. 15-1804 United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit A.D. and R.D., individually and on behalf of their son, S.D., a minor,

More information

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 09-16942 09/22/2009 Page: 1 of 66 DktEntry: 7070869 No. 09-16942 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN INDIANS OF THE COLUSA INDIAN COMMUNITY, a federally

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Case: 14-1294 Document: 205 Page: 1 Filed: 04/18/2016 NO. 2014-1294 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT PURDUE PHARMA L.P., THE P.F. LABORATORIES, INC., PURDUE PHARMACEUTICALS

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION. v. JUDGE WATSON MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP HUSTED, et al., Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION. v. JUDGE WATSON MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP HUSTED, et al., Defendants. Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 266 Filed: 11/16/14 Page: 1 of 20 PAGEID #: 7169 LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 17-51063 Document: 00514380489 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Case: 14-1294 Document: 71 Page: 1 Filed: 10/31/2014 NO. 2014-1294 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT PURDUE PHARMA L.P., THE P.F. LABORATORIES, INC., PURDUE PHARMACEUTICALS

More information

Case: 1:19-cv DAP Doc #: 19 Filed: 01/30/19 1 of 13. PageID #: 217 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 1:19-cv DAP Doc #: 19 Filed: 01/30/19 1 of 13. PageID #: 217 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Case: 1:19-cv-00145-DAP Doc #: 19 Filed: 01/30/19 1 of 13. PageID #: 217 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OHIO EASTERN DIVISION DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH UNIVERSITY

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #18-1051 Document #1768455 Filed: 01/15/2019 Page 1 of 5 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 1, 2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Mozilla Corporation,

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ROBERT F. MCDONNELL,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ROBERT F. MCDONNELL, Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 59 Filed: 03/06/2015 Pg: 1 of 18 No. 15-4019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT F. MCDONNELL, Defendant-Appellant.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Petitioners, Real Parties in Interest.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Petitioners, Real Parties in Interest. Case: 10-72977 09/29/2010 Page: 1 of 7 ID: 7491582 DktEntry: 6 10-72977 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MATTHEW CATE, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and

More information

3RD CIRCUIT LOCAL APPELLATE RULES Proposed amendments Page 1

3RD CIRCUIT LOCAL APPELLATE RULES Proposed amendments Page 1 3RD CIRCUIT LOCAL APPELLATE RULES Proposed amendments 2008 - Page 1 1 L.A.R. 1.0 SCOPE AND TITLE OF RULES 2 1.1 Scope and Organization of Rules 3 The following Local Appellate Rules (L.A.R.) are adopted

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ) INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE ) PROJECT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) ) v. ) No. 17-1351 ) DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., ) ) Defendants-Appellants.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 16-11051 Document: 00513873039 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 No. 16-11051 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT PRODUCT

More information

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Ohio Republican Party, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Ohio Republican Party, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Case No. 08-4322 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Ohio Republican Party, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Jennifer Brunner, Ohio Secretary of State, Defendant-Appellant. On Appeal from

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Appellate Case: 15-2047 Document: 01019415575 Date Filed: 04/15/2015 Page: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex. rel. State Engineer Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., and WILDTANGENT, INC.

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., and WILDTANGENT, INC. Case No. 2010-1544 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, HULU, LLC, Defendant, and WILDTANGENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 18-35015, 03/02/2018, ID: 10785046, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JANE DOE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. DONALD TRUMP,

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, et al.,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, et al., USCA Case #17-1145 Document #1683079 Filed: 07/07/2017 Page 1 of 15 NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT No. 17-1145 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CLEAN AIR

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, USCA4 Appeal: 18-2095 Doc: 50 Filed: 01/16/2019 Pg: 1 of 8 No. 18-2095 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, v. Petitioners, UNITED

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. MARK HOHIDER, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. MARK HOHIDER, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. No. 07-4588 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT MARK HOHIDER, et al. v. Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellant. On Appeal From The United States

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Case: 08-1200 Document: 1274843 Filed: 11/01/2010 Page: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, et al., Petitioners, No. 08-1200 and consolidated

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, KEVIN KNEDLER, AARON HARRIS, CHARLIE EARL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, -vs- JON HUSTED, Ohio Secretary of State, Defendant-Appellee,

More information

Case: 1:12-cv SJD Doc #: 69 Filed: 02/28/14 Page: 1 of 11 PAGEID #: 697

Case: 1:12-cv SJD Doc #: 69 Filed: 02/28/14 Page: 1 of 11 PAGEID #: 697 Case 112-cv-00797-SJD Doc # 69 Filed 02/28/14 Page 1 of 11 PAGEID # 697 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OHIO WESTERN DIVISION FAIR ELECTIONS OHIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JON

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPELAS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPELAS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPELAS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT KRIS W. KOBACH, KANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. Case Nos. 14-3062, 14-3072 THE UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION. ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION. ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. v. Case 2:15-cv-00620-MHT-TFM Document 70 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTHEAST, INC.; and JANE

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PERRY CAPITAL LLC, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JACOB J. LEW, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, et al. Case

More information

Case No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHELLE FLANAGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

Case No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHELLE FLANAGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Case: 18-55717, 11/20/2018, ID: 11095057, DktEntry: 27, Page 1 of 21 Case No. 18-55717 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHELLE FLANAGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. XAVIER

More information

Nos and IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Nos and IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 06-56325 10/27/2009 Page: 1 of 15 DktEntry: 7109530 Nos. 06-56325 and 06-56406 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CLAUDE CASSIRER, Plaintiff/Appellee v. KINGDOM OF SPAIN,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Decision Filed Mar. 5, 2014 ED PRIETO; COUNTY OF YOLO,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Decision Filed Mar. 5, 2014 ED PRIETO; COUNTY OF YOLO, Case: 11-16255 03/28/2014 ID: 9036451 DktEntry: 80 Page: 1 of 15 11-16255 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ADAM RICHARDS, et. al., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Before: O SCANNLAIN,

More information

4:07-cv RGK-CRZ Doc # 92 Filed: 04/15/13 Page 1 of 8 - Page ID # 696 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

4:07-cv RGK-CRZ Doc # 92 Filed: 04/15/13 Page 1 of 8 - Page ID # 696 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 4:07-cv-03101-RGK-CRZ Doc # 92 Filed: 04/15/13 Page 1 of 8 - Page ID # 696 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA RICHARD M. SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, C.A. NO. 4:07-CV-3101 v.

More information

Case: 1:10-cv SJD Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/22/10 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 286

Case: 1:10-cv SJD Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/22/10 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 286 Case: 1:10-cv-00820-SJD Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/22/10 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 286 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO FOR THE WESTERN DIVISION TRACIE HUNTER CASE NO. 1:10-cv-820 Plaintiff,

More information

Case: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 91 Filed: 03/25/14 Page: 1 of 26 PAGEID #: 2237

Case: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 91 Filed: 03/25/14 Page: 1 of 26 PAGEID #: 2237 Case 213-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc # 91 Filed 03/25/14 Page 1 of 26 PAGEID # 2237 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al, -vs- Plaintiffs, JON

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1063 Document #1554128 Filed: 05/26/2015 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT FULL SERVICE NETWORK, TRUCONNECT MOBILE, SAGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS,

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MAY 8, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MAY 8, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1166 Document #1671681 Filed: 04/18/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MAY 8, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT WALTER COKE, INC.,

More information

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v.

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v. Nos. 16-2721 & 16-2944 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Repondent/Cross-Petitioner.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 391 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, USCA Case #11-5158 Document #1372563 Filed: 05/07/2012 Page 1 of 10 No. 11-5158 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Case: 11-2288 Document: 006111258259 Filed: 03/28/2012 Page: 1 11-2288 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit GERALDINE A. FUHR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAZEL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.

More information

Case: 1:10-cv SJD Doc #: 102 Filed: 07/12/11 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 1953 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Case: 1:10-cv SJD Doc #: 102 Filed: 07/12/11 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 1953 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Case 110-cv-00820-SJD Doc # 102 Filed 07/12/11 Page 1 of 7 PAGEID # 1953 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION TRACIE HUNTER, et al., vs. Plaintiffs, HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD

More information

No. CAPITAL CASE Execution Scheduled: October 11, 2018, at 7:00 CST IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. EDMUND ZAGORSKI, Respondent,

No. CAPITAL CASE Execution Scheduled: October 11, 2018, at 7:00 CST IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. EDMUND ZAGORSKI, Respondent, No. CAPITAL CASE Execution Scheduled: October 11, 2018, at 7:00 CST IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES EDMUND ZAGORSKI, Respondent, v. TONY MAYS, Warden, Applicant. APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY OF

More information

Case No APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Agency No. A

Case No APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Agency No. A Case No. 14-35633 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JESUS RAMIREZ, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LINDA DOUGHERTY, et al. Defendants-Appellants. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 10a0146p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, X -- v.

More information

Case 8:16-cv CEH-AAS Document 254 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID 6051 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Case 8:16-cv CEH-AAS Document 254 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID 6051 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Case 8:16-cv-02899-CEH-AAS Document 254 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID 6051 PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA

More information

Case: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 12/23/13 Page: 1 of 19 PAGEID #: 781

Case: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 12/23/13 Page: 1 of 19 PAGEID #: 781 Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 12/23/13 Page: 1 of 19 PAGEID #: 781 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al., ) ) ) Plaintiffs,

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1670187 Filed: 04/07/2017 Page 1 of 11 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO. 17-1014 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO. 15-1363 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Case: 12-4055 Document: 006111432747 Filed: 09/13/2012 Page: 1 Nos. 12-4055 & 12-4076 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit OBAMA FOR AMERICA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JON HUSTED,

More information

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JEFFREY ALEXANDER STERLING, and JAMES RISEN,

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JEFFREY ALEXANDER STERLING, and JAMES RISEN, Appeal: 11-5028 Document: 67 Date Filed: 04/09/2012 Page: 1 of 6 No. 11-5028 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEFFREY ALEXANDER STERLING,

More information

Case: 1:08-cv DCN Doc #: 81 Filed: 02/19/10 1 of 6. PageID #: 2805 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 1:08-cv DCN Doc #: 81 Filed: 02/19/10 1 of 6. PageID #: 2805 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Case 108-cv-01339-DCN Doc # 81 Filed 02/19/10 1 of 6. PageID # 2805 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ANGELA LOWE, Plaintiff, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY/ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,

More information

Case: Document: 15 Filed: 01/16/2018 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Case: Document: 15 Filed: 01/16/2018 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Case: 18-1040 Document: 15 Filed: 01/16/2018 Page: 1 Deborah S. Hunt Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE CINCINNATI,

More information

STATE OF OHIO, CARROLL COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, CARROLL COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT [Cite as FIA Card Servs. v. Marshall, 2010-Ohio-4244.] STATE OF OHIO, CARROLL COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A. fka ) MBNA AMERICA BANK, N.A., ) ) CASE NO. 10 CA 864

More information

United States Court of Appeals. Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals. Federal Circuit Case: 12-1170 Case: CASE 12-1170 PARTICIPANTS Document: ONLY 99 Document: Page: 1 97 Filed: Page: 03/10/2014 1 Filed: 03/07/2014 2012-1170 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SUPREMA,

More information

Case 3:15-cv GNS Document 12 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 482

Case 3:15-cv GNS Document 12 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 482 Case 3:15-cv-00773-GNS Document 12 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 482 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-00773-GNS ANGEL WOODSON

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, No (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, No (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1363 Document #1600435 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 1 of 6 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, 2016 No. 15-1363 (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit No. 2016-1346 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Appellant v. MERUS N.V., Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

More information

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, No. 16-60104 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, v. Plaintiff- Appellant, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ROBERT F. MCDONNELL,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ROBERT F. MCDONNELL, No. 15-4019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT F. MCDONNELL, Defendant-Appellant. On Appeal From the United States District

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) USCA Case #12-1115 Document #1386189 Filed: 07/27/2012 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT NOEL CANNING, A DIVISION OF THE NOEL CORPORATION, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case: 17-1224 Document: 131 Page: 1 Filed: 05/19/2017 2017-1224 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit LAND OF LINCOLN MUTUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Non-Profit Mutual Insurance

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ) DAMIAN ANDREW SYBLIS, ) ) Petitioner ) No. 11-4478 ) v. ) ) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED ) STATES, ) ) Respondent. ) ) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

More information

Case: Document: 18-1 Filed: 09/11/2014 Page: 1

Case: Document: 18-1 Filed: 09/11/2014 Page: 1 Case: 14-3877 Document: 18-1 Filed: 09/11/2014 Page: 1 Case No. 14-3877 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT OHIO STATE CONFERENCE OF : THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION : On Appeal from

More information

TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * On October 20, 2006, Jonearl B. Smith was charged by complaint with

TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * On October 20, 2006, Jonearl B. Smith was charged by complaint with FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 23, 2011 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff - Appellee,

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,907 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JUSTIN GARBERG and TREVOR GARBERG, Appellees,

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,907 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JUSTIN GARBERG and TREVOR GARBERG, Appellees, NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,907 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JUSTIN GARBERG and TREVOR GARBERG, Appellees, v. ADVANTAGE SALES & MARKETING, LLC, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Case 1:16-cv-00452-TCB Document 29 Filed 08/11/16 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION COMMON CAUSE, et al., * * Civil Action No. Plaintiffs,

More information

Appeal: Doc: 25-1 Filed: 10/10/2012 Pg: 1 of 44 Total Pages:(1 of 45) No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Appeal: Doc: 25-1 Filed: 10/10/2012 Pg: 1 of 44 Total Pages:(1 of 45) No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Appeal: 12-1802 Doc: 25-1 Filed: 10/10/2012 Pg: 1 of 44 Total Pages:(1 of 45) No. 12-1802 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DR. MICHAEL JAFFÉ, as Insolvency Administrator over

More information

Case: Document: 16 Filed: 12/02/2016 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Filed: December 02, 2016

Case: Document: 16 Filed: 12/02/2016 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Filed: December 02, 2016 Case: 16-6680 Document: 16 Filed: 12/02/2016 Page: 1 Deborah S. Hunt Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE CINCINNATI,

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. EDWARD TUFFLY, AKA Bud Tuffly, Plaintiff-Appellant,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. EDWARD TUFFLY, AKA Bud Tuffly, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 16-15342 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWARD TUFFLY, AKA Bud Tuffly, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. ON APPEAL

More information