6 Binding The Federal Government
|
|
- Melina Goodwin
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 6 Binding The Federal Government PART A: UNAUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIONS BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL 6.01 INTRODUCTION TO THE QUESTION OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes admonished nearly a hundred years ago that [m]en must turn square corners when they deal with the Government. 1 But it is impossible to turn squarely unless one learns where those corners are. And when a government agent purports to offer a map to negotiate those curves, that turns out to be false because the agent lacked authority and was speaking out of bounds, the sharp edges of those corners hurt all the more. Yet if a court were to afford a plaintiff a means to escape erroneous governmental advice, especially when the agent s advice exceeded statutory or regulatory boundaries, the result might undermine the rule of law or discourage the government from offering informational services. Before inquiring whether the federal government may be subject to equitable estoppel in the same manner as a private party, we first must understand the basic nature of this common-law theory for imposing liability. A leading administrative law treatise explains the elements of the private law of equitable estoppel in this way: When Jones makes a representation to Smith, who reasonably relies to his detriment on that representation, Jones is then estopped to deny the truth of that representation. In this general form, estoppel includes elements of reasonable reliance on a representation and detrimental change in position caused by this reliance. 2 1 Rock Island, Ark. & La. R.R. Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 141, 143, (1920) (Holmes, J.). 2 ALFRED C. AMAN, JR. & WILLIAM T. MAYTON,ADMINISTRATIVE LAW , at (West Group, 2d ed. 2001). 399
2 400 Litigation With The Federal Government 6.01 The classic government estoppel case involves an alleged misstatement by a government employee about the rules governing the process to apply for, or the rules governing eligibility for, a government program. The claimant or putative beneficiary relies upon this statement, but then discovers it is mistaken, to his or her detriment. For example, the person may decide not to apply for the program, based upon mistaken advice by a government employee that he or she was not eligible, thereby forgoing valuable benefits for a period of time. Or an individual may rely upon program coverage to which he or she has been assured by a government employee, only to later find that the coverage is not there when he or she really needs it, owing to mistaken advice about eligibility for or the scope of the program. The archetypal scenario is that which framed the background to the landmark Supreme Court decision in Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill. 3 In Merrill, a farmer applied for crop insurance and was assured by the government agent that his entire crop qualified for insurance. After the farmer s crop was lost, it was discovered that the agent s advice concerning coverage was mistaken, because some of the crop was reseeded wheat, which was ineligible for coverage under the applicable crop insurance regulations. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the farmer had acted in reliance upon the agent s representation and had suffered a hardship as a consequence. Nonetheless, the Court held that the regulation must be followed and coverage denied, notwithstanding the agent s unauthorized and erroneous representations: Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rule-making power. And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority. The result in Merrill, thus, was rather different from what would have followed had private parties been involved and had the misrepresentation pertained to a private transaction. Yet, despite the hardship suffered by the plaintiff, the Merrill result was, as will be seen, the typical disposition of such claims in the federal courts. While the door to an alternative outcome in an unusually egregious case has never been sealed shut, a presumption against U.S. 380, (1947).
3 6.02 Binding The Federal Government 401 estoppel of the government, which rises to an apparently absolute prohibition in money cases, prevails THE PRESUMPTION AGAINST ESTOPPEL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The Supreme Court long has refused to allow equitable estoppel to lie against the federal government, while always leaving open the possibility that an unusually egregious case might arise in which such a remedy would be warranted. The Court rather consistently over the decades has held that the federal government may not be equitably estopped from insisting upon compliance with legal requirements, stated in statute or regulation, notwithstanding that private parties may, as a result, suffer hardship in a particular case. The rule precluding estoppel of the government has been applied to misrepresentations of law; 4 misrepresentations of fact; 5 oral misrepresentations; 6 written representations; 7 misrepresentations in the form of longstanding administrative rulings; 8 and off-hand remarks by government employees. 9 In fact, although there are a couple of ambiguous cases that could be characterized as involving estoppel, the Supreme Court has never forthrightly imposed the doctrine against the United States. And yet, while refusing to apply equitable estoppel in each and every case that has come before it, the Court has declined to hold that the government may never be estopped. 10 The Court has suggested that it is at least possible that a case of serious affirmative misconduct by the government might arise in which equitable estoppel would be appropriately levied against the United States. Nonetheless, as the Supreme Court s latest commentary confirms, this hypothetical possibility must be placed against the background of a general, and rather strong, presumption against application of estoppel against the federal government. In 1990, the Supreme Court decided Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 11 the latest and most significant in the long line of government 4 Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785 (1981). 5 Lee v. Munroe & Thornton, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch.) 366 (1813). 6 Heckler v. Community Health Services, Inc., 467 U.S. 51 (1984). 7 Lee v. Munroe & Thornton, supra. 8 Automobile Club v. Commissioner, 353 U.S. 180 (1957). 9 Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961). 10 Heckler, 467 U.S. at U.S. 414, (1990).
4 402 Litigation With The Federal Government 6.02 estoppel cases to come before the Court. In Richmond, a former government employee, had taken a disability retirement. One of the restrictions upon his eligibility for the disability annuity was a statutory limitation on earnings; if a recipient earned more than the limit, he or she would lose eligibility for benefits. The disabled former government employee took a part-time job, which generally produced earnings below the statutory limits. (Although not relevant to the legal issues in the case, it is curious to note that the individual had been granted a disability retirement by reason of impaired eyesight and yet still was able to secure part-time work transporting school children as a bus driver!) He then had the opportunity to earn more by working overtime. Quite understandably and properly, the former government employee contacted the appropriate federal government office whose employees were responsible for advising on personnel-related matters to inquire how much more he could earn without losing eligibility for the annuity. Relying upon an earlier version of the statute (since superseded), the government agent gave the former employee incorrect advice. The former employee took the overtime work, earned the extra income, and, as a consequence, lost six months of benefits by exceeding the statutory limit. He appealed the denial of benefits to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), arguing that his reliance on the erroneous advice should estop the government from holding him ineligible under the statute. 12 The MSPB ruled that the government could not be estopped from enforcing a statutorily imposed requirement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that while the government may not ordinarily be estopped, the agent s reliance on a defunct statute was affirmative misconduct that should bind the government under these circumstances. The Supreme Court reversed in Richmond and refused to estop the United States from enforcing a statutory limit upon payments of money from the public treasury, indeed finding a constitutional prohibition against doing so. 13 The Court labeled the purported affirmative misconduct exception to the prohibition on government estoppel as dicta, saying that this proposition had taken on something of a life of its own in the lower courts. 14 In rather admonitory language, the Court observed that the courts of appeals have taken our statements as an invitation to search for an appropriate case in which to apply estoppel against the Government, yet [the Supreme Court has] reversed every finding of estoppel that [it has] re- 12 Id. at See infra Richmond, 496 U.S. at
5 6.03 Binding The Federal Government 403 viewed. In sum, the Court sent a strong signal to the lower federal courts that equitable estoppel is strongly disfavored and reminded them that the Supreme Court has never approved its application. Nonetheless, as in prior cases, the Court in Richmond stopped short of saying, unambiguously and without exception, that equitable estoppel simply cannot apply to the United States. 15 While characterizing the government s arguments for an absolute no-estoppel rule as substantial, the Court put the issue off for another day, finding it unnecessary to the resolution of this case. Instead of articulating a clear rule on estoppel of the government in general, the Richmond Court stated that [a] narrower ground of decision is sufficient to address the type of suit presented here, a claim for payment of money from the Public Treasury contrary to a statutory appropriation. As discussed next, the Court broadly precluded the application of equitable estoppel against the federal government when it would effectively disburse funds contrary to congressional restrictions on the use of appropriations THE PROHIBITION ON ESTOPPEL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN STATUTORY MONEY CASES In Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 16 the Supreme Court suggested that equitable estoppel against the federal government is generally disfavored, as discussed above, 17 and then emphatically barred estoppel claims that seek payments from the public treasury contrary to statutory limitations on the use of appropriate funds. The Appropriations Clause of the United States Constitution provides that: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. 18 In Richmond, the Court cited the Appropriations Clause as precluding waiver of the statutory limitations on payment of disability benefits when the claimant had earned excessive outside income, even though the claimant had relied upon erroneous government advice. 19 The Court held that mistaken advice given by a government employee to a benefits claimant may not estop the government from denying benefits which are not otherwise permitted by law. Writing for the Court in Richmond, Justice Kennedy emphasized the straightforward and explicit command of the Appropriations Clause of the 15 Id. at U.S. 414 (1990). 17 See supra U.S. CONST., art. I, 9, cl Richmond, 496 U.S. at 424.
Case 1:08-cv RWR-JMF Document 63 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cv-00961-RWR-JMF Document 63 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-961
More informationMISREPRESENTATION IN APPLICATION--FALSE ANSWER(S) INSERTED BY AGENT (ESTOPPEL). 1
Page 1 of 5 AGENT (ESTOPPEL). 1 NOTE WELL: This issue assumes that the jury has already concluded that a false representation was made. If more than one alleged misrepresentation is involved, it may be
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
No. 126 March 21, 2018 811 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Rich JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOUR CORNERS ROD AND GUN CLUB, an Oregon non-profit corporation, Defendant-Respondent. Kip
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN B262029
Filed 9/16/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN SERGIO PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. B262029 (Los Angeles
More informationCORPORATE LITIGATION: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NON-RELIANCE PROVISIONS. Underlying Principles
CORPORATE LITIGATION: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NON-RELIANCE PROVISIONS JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN AND YAFIT COHN * SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP April 15, 2016 This month we continue our discussion of contractual
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MARTIN LEAVITT and JANICE LEAVITT, Petitioners-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED November 18, 2008 v No. 279344 Michigan Tax Tribunal CITY OF NOVI, LC No. 00-318815 Respondent-Appellee.
More informationThe Real Estate Finance Opinion Report of 2012
The Real Estate Finance Opinion Report of 2012 History and Summary By Edward J. Levin Edward J. Levin is a partner in the Baltimore, Maryland, office of Gordon Feinblatt LLC and the chair of the Real Property
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GATCHBY PROPERTIES, L.P., Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 5, 2002 v No. 217417 Antrim Circuit Court ANTRIM COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION, LC No. 97-007232-CH TOWNSHIP
More informationESTOPPEL AND THE AFFIRMATIVE MISCONDUCT REQUIREMENT-CHIEN-SHIH WANG V. ATTORNEY GENERAL
1149 ESTOPPEL AND THE AFFIRMATIVE MISCONDUCT REQUIREMENT-CHIEN-SHIH WANG V. ATTORNEY GENERAL INTRODUCTION Traditionally, the United States government has been immune from the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
More informationIN THE MATTER OF PESSOA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. Kehoe, Arthur, Shaw Geter,
Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CAL16-26366 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0056 September Term, 2018 IN THE MATTER OF PESSOA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. Kehoe,
More informationCase 3:15-cv JST Document 79-1 Filed 11/08/16 Page 1 of 83. Exhibit 1
Case 3:15-cv-00623-JST Document 79-1 Filed 11/08/16 Page 1 of 83 Exhibit 1 Case 3:15-cv-00623-JST Document 79-1 Filed 11/08/16 Page 2 of 83 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
More informationBAD ARGUMENTS: HOW TO IDENTIFY AND REFUTE THEM
BAD ARGUMENTS: HOW TO IDENTIFY AND REFUTE THEM NOSSCR Baltimore Conference May 13, 2011 Eric Schnaufer eric@schnaufer.com Bad Arguments: Three Sources Administrative Law Judges No penalty for making bad
More informationother person the opinion giver expressly authorizes to rely on the closing opinion.
[As approved by the Legal Opinions Committee of the Business Law Section of the American Bar Association on September 14, 2018 and the Board of the Working Group on Legal Opinions Foundation on October
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc JODIE NEVILS, APPELLANT, vs. No. SC93134 GROUP HEALTH PLAN, INC., and ACS RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENTS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY Honorable
More information5 Suits Against Federal Officers or Employees
5 Suits Against Federal Officers or Employees 5.01 INTRODUCTION TO SUITS AGAINST FEDERAL OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES Although the primary focus in this treatise is upon litigation claims against the federal
More informationTohono O odham Nation v. City of Glendale, 804 F.3d 1292 (9th Cir. 2015)
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2015-2016 Tohono O odham Nation v. City of Glendale, 804 F.3d 1292 (9th Cir. 2015) Kathryn S. Ore University of Montana - Missoula, kathryn.ore@umontana.edu
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 14-84C (Filed: November 19, 2014 FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, et al. v. Plaintiffs, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Tucker Act;
More informationCase 1:07-cv PLF Document 212 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:07-cv-01144-PLF Document 212 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel., AARON J. WESTRICK, Ph.D., Civil Action No. 04-0280
More informationSCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF PONTIAC v. SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. 512 F.3d 252 (6 Cir. 2008)
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF PONTIAC v. SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OPINION th 512 F.3d 252 (6 Cir. 2008) R. GUY COLE, Jr., Circuit Judge. This case requires us to decide a
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Contracts And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Berelli Co., the largest single
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JASMINE BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED April 26, 2002 V No. 230218 Wayne Circuit Court DETROIT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES CREDIT LC No. 99-918131-CK UNION, Defendant-Appellee.
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-12-1035 CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, LLC APPELLANT V. THOMAS WHILLOCK AND GAYLA WHILLOCK APPELLEES Opinion Delivered January 22, 2014 APPEAL FROM THE VAN BUREN
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HOLMES and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
TWILLADEAN CINK, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit November 27, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellant, v.
More informationCOUNSEL. Peter B. Rames, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellants. Susanne Hoffman-Dooley, New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.
1 HANSON V. TURNEY, 2004-NMCA-069, 136 N.M. 1, 94 P.3d 1 MABEL HANSON and HANSON ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THOMAS C. TURNEY, NEW MEXICO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER, Defendant-Appellee.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 28, 2015 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 28, 2015 Session SHELBY COUNTY v. JAMES CREWS, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT00436904 Karen R. Williams, Judge No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE B207453
Filed 4/8/09; pub. order 4/30/09 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE RENE FLORES et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. B207453 (Los
More informationRESCISSION OF CONTRACTS IN CALIFORNIA
Home Eugene E. Kinsey, Attorney at Law Phone:562 596-8177 Fax: 562 596-0298 E-Mail: KinseyE@ix.netcom.com Web: www.kinseylaw.com 323 Main St., 2nd Floor, Seal Beach, CA 90740 RESCISSION OF CONTRACTS IN
More informationCASE NO. 1D H. Richard Bisbee, H. Richard Bisbee P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
RIVERWOOD NURSING CENTER, LLC., D/B/A GLENWOOD NURSING CENTER, Appellant, v. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2008 CA 000199 IMERGENT. INC., and STORESONLINE,
More informationUniversity of Baltimore Law Review
University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 22 Issue 1 Fall 1992 Article 3 1992 A Review of the Maryland Construction Trust Statute Decisions in the Court of Appeals of Maryland and the United States Bankruptcy
More informationCONTRACT LAW. Elements of a Contract
CONTRACT LAW Contracts: Types and Sources in Australia CONTRACT: An agreement concerning promises made between two or more parties with the intention of creating certain legal rights and obligations upon
More informationAPPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT
APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT We appreciate your interest. We are an equal employment opportunity employer. Our policy is not to discriminate against any applicant or employee based on race, color, sex, religion,
More informationQuestion 1: I read that a mentally impaired adult s contracts may be void or voidable. Which is it?
Question 1: I read that a mentally impaired adult s contracts may be void or voidable. Which is it? Answer 1: It depends. If a court of proper jurisdiction has found an adult to be non compos mentis, or
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GUARDIAN ANGEL HEALTHCARE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 14, 2013 v No. 307825 Wayne Circuit Court PROGRESSIVE MICHIGAN INSURANCE LC No. 08-120128-NF COMPANY,
More informationFEDERAL LIABILITY. Levin v. United States Docket No Argument Date: January 15, 2013 From: The Ninth Circuit
FEDERAL LIABILITY Has the United States Waived Sovereign Immunity for Claims of Medical Battery Based on the Acts of Military Medical Personnel? CASE AT A GLANCE Under the Gonzalez Act, the United States
More informationPlaintiff-Appellant, 04 Civ (KMW) -against- OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff-Appellant John S. Pereira, as Chapter 7 Trustee
In Re: Trace International Holdings, Inc. et al Doc. 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------X In re: TRACE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by
More informationMajor Questions Doctrine
Major Questions Doctrine THE ISSUE IN BRIEF n From Supreme Court Justices to the Speaker of the House, those on both the right and the left express concern over the ever-expanding authority of the administrative
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-980 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JON HUSTED, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE, v. Petitioner, A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
More informationArchitects Regulation 2012
New South Wales under the Architects Act 2003 Her Excellency the Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, has made the following Regulation under the Architects Act 2003. GREG PEARCE, MLC Minister
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1054 In the Supreme Court of the United States CURTIS SCOTT, PETITIONER v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationChapter 1. TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND SAFETY ACT (Assented to March 6, 2002)
Chapter 1 TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND SAFETY ACT (Assented to March 6, 2002) Purpose 1. The purpose of this Act is to enhance public safety in Nunavut by providing for the efficient and flexible administration
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS TAURUS MOLD, INC, a Michigan Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 13, 2009 v No. 282269 Macomb Circuit Court TRW AUTOMOTIVE US, LLC, a Foreign LC No.
More informationCase 1:14-cv RMC Document 35 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:14-cv-02035-RMC Document 35 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REDDING RANCHERIA, ) a federally-recognized Indian tribe, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. )
More informationPRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J.
PRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J. UNITED LEASING CORPORATION OPINION BY v. Record No. 090254 JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. February 25, 2010
More informationNo IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOTICE The text of this order may be changed or corrected prior t~ the time for filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. FIFTH DIVISION July 24, 2009 No. IN THE APPELLATE COURT
More informationDISCUSSION. Page Md. LEXIS 115, *7
2007 Md. LEXIS 115, *7 Page 4 [*8l DISCUSSION Koons Ford contends that under the FAA, arbitration agreements are enforceable absent a showing that Congress intended to override the FAA by precluding binding
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO. 13-2694 WILLIE C. WAGES, APPELLANT, V. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals
More information42 USC 421. NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see
TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 7 - SOCIAL SECURITY SUBCHAPTER II - FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS, AND DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS 421. Disability determinations (a) State agencies (1)
More informationDelaware State Supplemental Rebate Agreement And (Manufacturer) As used in this Agreement, the following terms have the following
Delaware State Supplemental Rebate Agreement And (Manufacturer) The Delaware Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Medicaid and Medical Assistance (hereinafter Department or DMMA ) and
More informationLEXSEE 2009 U.S. DIST. LEXIS VERNON HADDEN, PLAINTIFF v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFEN- DANT CASE NO.: 1:08-CV-10
Page 1 LEXSEE 2009 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 69383 VERNON HADDEN, PLAINTIFF v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFEN- DANT CASE NO.: 1:08-CV-10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY, BOWLING
More informationD.H. Hill Advisors, Inc Green Oak Place, Suite 100 Kingwood, Texas Fax: Client Profile/Account Application
Advisor Use Only SLC/OFAC Rcvd:_ By:_ ( )Check ( )Transfer ( )Complete ( )On File ( )Missing ( )Incomplete Mailed/OVN On: To: Entd:_ By: D.H. Hill Advisors, Inc. 1543 Green Oak Place, Suite 100 Kingwood,
More informationWHEREAS, the Tribe and the County have a longstanding history of mutual assistance and cooperation with formalized agreements dating to 1993;
SHARED JURISDICTION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE KALISPEL TRIBE OF INDIANS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE PEND OREILLE COUNTY SHERIFF This AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 2012,
More informationBEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR. VSB Docket No , , , ORDER OF REVOCATION
VIRGINIA; BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR IN THE MATTER OF BRYAN JAMES WALDRON VSB Docket No. 17-051-106968, 18-051-109817, 18-051-111305, 18-051-111321 ORDER OF REVOCATION THIS
More informationTHE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL INTRODUCED BY GREENLEAF, ALLOWAY, SCHWANK, FONTANA, MENSCH AND HUGHES, MARCH 6, 2013
PRIOR PRINTER'S NO. PRINTER'S NO. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL No. Session of INTRODUCED BY GREENLEAF, ALLOWAY, SCHWANK, FONTANA, MENSCH AND HUGHES, MARCH, SENATOR GREENLEAF, JUDICIARY,
More informationCOPYRIGHT 2009 THE LAW PROFESSOR
CIVIL PROCEDURE SHOPPING LIST OF ISSUES FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE Professor Gould s Shopping List for Civil Procedure. 1. Pleadings. 2. Personal Jurisdiction. 3. Subject Matter Jurisdiction. 4. Amended Pleadings.
More informationDirective. Staff Manual - Staff Rules Office of Ethics and Business (EBC) Bank Access to Information Policy Designation Public
Directive Staff Manual - Staff Rules - 03.00 Office of Ethics and Business (EBC) Bank Access to Information Policy Designation Public Catalogue Number Issued Effective May 14, 2012 Retired September 15,
More informationAnswer A to Question 1
Answer A to Question 1 The issue is whether Pat has a valid contract with Danco and whether Danco has breached such contract, and what damages Pat is entitled to as a result. Service Contract Contracts
More informationExchange Act Rule 14e-1 Opinions for Debt Tender Offers
Exchange Act Rule 14e-1 Opinions for Debt Tender Offers By Securities Law Opinions Subcommittee, Federal Regulation of Securities Committee, ABA Business Law Section I. INTRODUCTION This report addresses
More informationSession: The False Claims Act Post-Escobar. Authors: Robert L. Vogel and Andrew H. Miller THE ESCOBAR CASE: SOME PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS INTRODUCTION
Session: The False Claims Act Post-Escobar Authors: Robert L. Vogel and Andrew H. Miller THE ESCOBAR CASE: SOME PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS INTRODUCTION In United Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel.
More informationThe Mutual Beneficial Association, Inc. BYLAWS. July 1, 2012
The Mutual Beneficial Association, Inc. BYLAWS July 1, 2012 PREFACE All references in this document to he imply both he and she. ARTICLE I - ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION SECTION l. OFFICES AND SEAL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO RGS AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY
Case 1:13-cv-13168-RGS Document 58 Filed 04/04/16 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-13168-RGS AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. JOHN
More informationInc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using privity and agency to hold third parties liable
1196303 Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using privity and agency to hold third parties liable Mary Paterson* and Gerard Kennedy**, Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP The Ontario Court of Appeal s August 2015
More informationUSA v. Edward McLaughlin
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-25-2016 USA v. Edward McLaughlin Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 31, 2018 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 31, 2018 Session 02/15/2019 MICHAEL MORTON v. KNOX COUNTY SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County No. 1-383-16 Kristi
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 534 U. S. (2001) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 141, Original In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS, PLAINTIFF v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO AND STATE OF COLORADO ON THE EXCEPTION BY THE UNITED STATES TO THE FIRST INTERIM REPORT OF THE
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 informationRevisiting Affiliated Ute: Back In Vogue In The 9th Circ.
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Revisiting Affiliated Ute: Back In Vogue
More informationAugust 30, A. Introduction
August 30, 2013 The New Jersey Supreme Court Limits The Use Of Equitable Estoppel As A Basis To Compel Arbitration Of Claims Against A Person That Is Not A Signatory To An Arbitration Agreement A. Introduction
More informationRULES OF STATE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING EXAMINERS CHAPTER RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT TABLE OF CONTENTS
RULES OF STATE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING EXAMINERS CHAPTER 0120-02 RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT TABLE OF CONTENTS 0120-02-.01 Applicability 0120-02-.06 Acceptance of Work 0120-02-.02 Proper
More informationIC Chapter 3. Regional Transportation Authorities
IC 36-9-3 Chapter 3. Regional Transportation Authorities IC 36-9-3-0.5 Expired (As added by P.L.212-2013, SEC.2. Expired 3-15-2014 by P.L.212-2013, SEC.2.) IC 36-9-3-1 Application of chapter Sec. 1. This
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Before the Court is Twin City Fire Insurance Company s ( Twin City ) Motion for
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRADEN PARTNERS, LP, et al., v. Plaintiffs, TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-jst ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
More informationEDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES
CHAPTER 1 7 MOTIONS EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES Paralegals should be able to draft routine motions. They should be able to collect, prepare, and organize supporting documents, such as affidavits. They may be
More informationAccountants Liability. An accountant may be liable under common law due to negligence or fraud.
Accountants Liability Liability under Common Law An accountant may be liable under common law due to negligence or fraud. Negligence A loss due to negligence occurs when an accountant violates the duty
More informationHow Wal-Mart v. Dukes Affects Securities-Fraud Class Actions
How Wal-Mart v. Dukes Affects Securities-Fraud Class Actions By Robert H. Bell and Thomas G. Haskins Jr. July 18, 2012 District courts and circuit courts continue to grapple with the full import of the
More informationMutual Assent in Simple Contracts
Washington University Law Review Volume 6 Issue 1 January 1921 Mutual Assent in Simple Contracts E. A. Shepley Follow this and additional works at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of
More informationORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PAGE - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 1 DO SUNG UHM AND EUN SOOK UHM, a married couple, individually, and for all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs, HUMANA, INC.,
More informationCase , Document 53-1, 04/10/2018, , Page1 of 19
17-1085-cv O Donnell v. AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co. 1 In the 2 United States Court of Appeals 3 For the Second Circuit 4 5 6 7 August Term 2017 8 9 Argued: October 25, 2017 10 Decided: April 10, 2018 11
More information42 USC 405. NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see
TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 7 - SOCIAL SECURITY SUBCHAPTER II - FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS, AND DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS 405. Evidence, procedure, and certification for payments
More informationPromissory Estoppel : Applicability on Govt - By Divya Bhargava Tuesday, 10 November :48 - Last Updated Wednesday, 11 November :01
The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is an equitable doctrine. This principle is commonly invoked in common law in case of breach of contract or against a Government. The doctrine is popularly called as
More informationOF MANTECA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. MORRISON HOMES, INC. ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND RESPONDENTS,
August 28, 2009 PULTE HOME CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. CITY OF MANTECA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. MORRISON HOMES, INC. ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND RESPONDENTS, v. CITY OF MANTECA, DEFENDANT AND
More informationSEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA Tribal Court Small Claims Rules of Procedure Table of Contents RULE 7.010. TITLE AND SCOPE... 3 RULE 7.020. APPLICABILITY OF RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE... 3 RULE 7.040. CLERICAL
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RANDY APPLETON and TAMMY APPLETON, Plaintiff-Appellees/Cross- Appellants, UNPUBLISHED August 31, 2006 v No. 260875 St. Joseph Circuit Court WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationTRANSOCEAN PARTNERS LLC 2014 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN
Exhibit 10.12 TRANSOCEAN PARTNERS LLC 2014 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN 1. Objectives. This Transocean Partners LLC 2014 Incentive Compensation Plan (the Plan ) has been adopted by Transocean Partners LLC,
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO ST. LOUIS REGIONAL CONVENTION ) No. ED106282 AND SPORTS COMPLEX AUTHORITY, ) ET AL., ) ) Respondents, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of )
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE. Case No: CZ Hon. Cynthia Diane Stephens
WARREN WOODS, Plaintiff, STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE -vs- ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Case No: 08-107649 CZ Hon. Cynthia Diane Stephens Defendant.
More informationLast revised: 6 April 2018 By using the Agile Manager Website, you are agreeing to these Terms of Use.
Agile Manager TERMS OF USE Last revised: 6 April 2018 By using the Agile Manager Website, you are agreeing to these Terms of Use. 1. WHO THESE TERMS OF USE APPLY TO; WHAT THEY GOVERN. This Agile Manager
More information1 The Power Engineers Regulation (AR 85/2003) is amended by this Regulation.
Alberta Regulation 20/2018 Safety Codes Act POWER ENGINEERS AMENDMENT REGULATION Filed: March 1, 2018 For information only: Made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council (O.C. 051/2018) on February 28, 2018
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 583 U. S. (2018) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CNH INDUSTRIAL N.V., ET AL. v. JACK REESE, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
More informationNOTICES. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY [OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 96-l]
NOTICES OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL [OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 96-l] Department of Public Welfare; Enforceability of Durational Residency and Citizenship Requirement of Act 1996-35 December 9, 1996 Honorable
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GWENDER LAURY, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED May 10, 2007 v No. 272727 Wayne Circuit Court COLONIAL TITLE COMPANY LC No. 04-413821-CH and Defendant/Third-Party Defendant-
More informationSAMPLE NOTES FROM OUR LLB CORE GUIDE:
SAMPLE NOTES FROM OUR LLB CORE GUIDE: CONTRACT LAW PRIVITY CHAPTER LLB Answered is a comprehensive, first-class set of exam-focused study notes for the Undergraduate Law Degree. Please visit LLBanswered.com
More information33n t~e ~upreme ~:ourt ot t~e i~lnite~ ~tate~
No. 09-846 33n t~e ~upreme ~:ourt ot t~e i~lnite~ ~tate~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER ~). TOHONO O ODHAM NATION ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
No. 307 July 9, 2014 235 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Kristina JONES, Plaintiff-Respondent Cross-Appellant, v. Adrian Alvarez NAVA, Defendant, and WORKMEN S AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, a
More informationCASE NO. 1D John R. Dowd, Jr., and Charles G. Brackins of The Dowd Law Firm, P.A., Ft. Walton Beach, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA THOMAS J. DUGGAN, LLC, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO.
More informationhis reliance was reasonable.1 See Brown v. Techdata Corp Ga. 622, 624-
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: November 17, 2014 S13G1826. RAYSONI v. PAYLESS AUTO DEALS, LLC et al. Blackwell, Justice. To make out a claim at common law for fraud, a plaintiff must show not
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 29, 2007 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 29, 2007 Session DARRYL JONES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Claims Commission for the State of Tennessee No. 20401093 Stephanie R. Reevers,
More informationSupreme Court Declines to Overrule or Modify Basic, But Allows Rebuttal of "Price Impact" in Opposing Class Certification
June 24, 2014 Supreme Court Declines to Overrule or Modify Basic, But Allows Rebuttal of "Price Impact" in Opposing Class Certification In Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317, the Supreme
More informationREMOTE DEPOSIT ANYWHERE AGREEMENT
PLEASE READ THIS TIOGA STATE BANK REMOTE DEPOSIT ANYWHERE CAREFULLY AND KEEP A COPY FOR YOUR REFERENCE. 1. DEFINITIONS: In this Agreement, the words "you" or "your" mean the consumer or business that has
More information