Standing. Carpenters Industrial Council v. Zinke, 854 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Kavanaugh, J.).
|
|
- Melina Phillips
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 May 31, 2017 Standing. Carpenters Industrial Council v. Zinke, 854 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Kavanaugh, J.). Standing; Direct Review of Actions Under More Than One Statute, But Only One Statute Provides for Direct Review; Chevron; De Minimis Doctrine. Waterkeeper Alliance v. Environmental Protection Agency, 853 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Williams, J.) (Brown, J., concurring). Federal Power Act; Just and Reasonable Rates; Arbitrary and Capricious. Maine v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 854 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Sentelle, J.). National Labor Relations Act; Railway Labor Act; Ratification of Decision by a Previously Unlawful Board; Substantial Evidence. Allied Aviation Service Company of New Jersey v. National Labor Relations Board, 854 F.3d 55 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Pillard, J.). Federal Power Act; Mobile-Sierra Presumption; Abuse of Discretion. Emera Maine v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 854 F.3d 662 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Wilkins, J.). Freedom of Information Act; Waiver by Government of Exemption; Exemptions 6 and 7(c). Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. United States Department of Justice, 854 F.3d 675 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Wilkins, J.). Standing. Carpenters Industrial Council v. Zinke, 854 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Kavanaugh, J.). In 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Final Rule designating 9.5 million acres of federal forest lands in California, Oregon, and Washington as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, an area roughly twice the size of the State of New Jersey. Various lumber companies that obtain timber from those forest lands are members of a trade association known as the American Forest Resource Council. The Council sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to challenge the legality of the critical habitat designation. The District Court held the Council did not have standing, based upon the D.C. Circuit s recent decision in Swanson Group Manufacturing LLC v. Jewell, 790 F.3d 235 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded. Where, as here, a plaintiff alleges that it will suffer future economic harm as the result of a government action, the complaint and declarations must together demonstrate a substantial probability of injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability. The Council contends that the critical habitat designation will decrease the timber supply from designated lands and thus cause its member lumber companies to suffer economic harm. Causation is the more difficult question when considering allegations of future economic harm arising from government action that decreases a business's ability to obtain a necessary raw material. When performing that inherently imprecise task of predicting or speculating about causal effects, common sense can be a useful tool. Common sense and basic economics tell us that a business will be harmed by a government action when (i) the government action decreases the supply of a raw material from a source that the business relies on and (ii) the business cannot find a replacement without
2 incurring additional cost. That principle was established in Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Glickman, 92 F.3d 1228 (D.C. Cir. 1996). The standing inquiry, therefore, boils down to whether the plaintiff has adequately demonstrated: (1) a substantial probability that the challenged government action will cause a decrease in the supply of raw material from a particular source; (2) a substantial probability that the plaintiff manufacturer obtains raw material from that source; and (3) a substantial probability that the plaintiff will suffer some economic harm as a result of the decrease in the supply of raw material from that source. The Council made those showings in this case. Swanson was distinguished on the particular facts in that case that the affidavits and assertions in the complaint were in fact inadequate, not that they could not have been adequate. Standing; Direct Review of Actions Under More Than One Statute, But Only One Statute Provides for Direct Review; Chevron; De Minimis Doctrine. Waterkeeper Alliance v. Environmental Protection Agency, 853 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Williams, J.) (Brown, J., concurring). Two provisions of federal law sections of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) require parties to notify authorities when large quantities of hazardous materials (such as ammonia or hydrogen sulfide) are released into the environment. In addition, EPCRA requires that the information be made public. In 2008 the EPA issued a final rule that generally exempts farms from CERCLA and EPCRA reporting requirements for air releases from animal waste, except it requires Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) to report under EPCRA, but not under CERCLA. The rule was challenged by several environmental groups on the ground that there was no basis in either statute for exempting such reporting. Their asserted basis for standing was informational injury. Because a plaintiff suffers an "injury in fact" when agency action cuts him off from "information which must be publicly disclosed pursuant to a statute," an initial question was whether the environmental groups had standing to challenge the CERCLA exemption, because CERCLA s reporting requirements are to the government, not to the public. The court noted that EPCRA s reporting requirements are expressly tied to CERCLA reporting requirements, so that an exemption from CERCLA likewise effected an exemption from EPCRA, denying the plaintiffs information required to be disclosed to the public. Consequently, the plaintiffs were injured by the CERCLA exemption and had standing to challenge it. While CERCLA contains a provision that provides for direct review of CERCLA rules in the D.C. Circuit, EPCRA does not contain any specific judicial review provision. Consequently, the general rule applies, that an action challenging a rule must be filed in district court. The court relied on precedent to find jurisdiction to hear the challenge to the EPCRA rule as well, because it would be a wasteful exaltation of form over substance to require piecemeal challenges in various courts. On the merits, the court began with a Chevron analysis. However, the court found no ambiguity in the statutory language requiring reporting of "any release... of a hazardous substance... in quantities equal to or greater than" reportable quantities, and the EPAdid not suggest the amounts here were less than reportable quantities. As a final argument, the EPAinvoked the de minimis doctrine. The de minimis doctrine is an expression of courts' reluctance "to apply the literal terms of a statute to mandate pointless expenditures of effort" and is thus a "cousin" of the doctrine permitting courts to avoid absurd results in the face of a
3 statute's seemingly plain meaning. The EPA purported to find an absence of regulatory benefit. It asserted that the animal-waste "reports are unnecessary because, in most cases, a federal response is impractical and unlikely." The court, however, noted that commenters had provided, and EPA had not refuted, practical examples of situations in which a federal response would be practical and called for. Moreover, the statutes requirements for informing local governments could provide certain recognized benefits. As a result, it could not be said that the benefits of the reporting would be de minimis. Interestingly, the court acknowledged that the costs of the rule might outweigh the benefits, but it said that would not be enough to support application of the de minimis doctrine. Accordingly, the court vacated EPA s rule. Judge Brown concurred but wished to clarify how she believes Chevron should be applied. She read the majority s opinion as combining the Chevron two-step into a one-step reasonableness inquiry. In this case, EPA set forth no statutory ambiguity authorizing its Final Rule. Under Step One, this ends the matter. Quoting from Justice Breyer s casebook, she wrote, The weight of scholarly opinion endorses an equation of step two with arbitrary and capricious review. Such review is not an inquiry into congressional instructions, but an assessment of whether the agency's decision is reasonable on the merits and not, in the [Supreme] Court's words, arbitrary or capricious in substance. Federal Power Act; Just and Reasonable Rates; Arbitrary and Capricious. Maine v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 854 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Sentelle, J.). A group of privately owned utilities that provide transmission services and customers filed petitions for review of orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) setting the group's new base return on equity (ROE) that was recoverable under rates charged for the transmission of electric energy. The D.C. Circuit held that FERC did not demonstrate the unlawfulness of group's base ROE before establishing the new base ROE, and thus, FERC acted arbitrarily in setting the new base ROE. Moreover, FERC failed to establish a rational connection between the record evidence and its decision to pick the midpoint of the upper half of the zone of reasonableness as group's new base ROE. Accordingly, the court granted the petitions and vacated the orders and remanded. National Labor Relations Act; Railway Labor Act; Ratification of Decision by a Previously Unlawful Board; Substantial Evidence. Allied Aviation Service Company of New Jersey v. National Labor Relations Board, 854 F.3d 55 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Pillard, J.). A commercial airline fuel service provider petitioned for review of and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cross-applied for enforcement of NLRB's order determining that provider violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by failing to recognize and bargain with union that represented provider's employees. The D.C. Circuit held that substantial evidence supported the NLRB's decision that the provider did not establish the requisite carrier control for it to be subject to Railway Labor Act (RLA) jurisdiction and exempt from NLRA. The duly-constituted NLRB panel's certification of union as representative of provider's employees ratified the prior panel's earlier order directing representation election for union, thereby remedying Appointments Clause defect in prior panel's order. Substantial evidence also supported the NLRB's decision that provider's employees with
4 job titles of fueling supervisors, tank farm supervisors, and maintenance supervisors were not supervisors under the NLRA and that provider's employees with the job title of training supervisors were supervisors under the NLRA ineligible to participate in the representation election for the union. Federal Power Act; Mobile-Sierra Presumption; Abuse of Discretion. Emera Maine v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 854 F.3d 662 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Wilkins, J.). In 2011, the Commission issued Order No. 1000, ordering utilities to remove certain "right of first refusal" provisions from their existing tariffs and agreements. These provisions granted incumbent utilities "the option to construct any new transmission facilities in their particular service areas, even if the proposal for new construction came from a third party." Order No. 1000's prohibition of such provisions was premised on the rationale that rights of first refusal deterred new entrants "from proposing much-needed infrastructure reforms, discouraging competition within the industry, and potentially driving up the cost of rates charged for wholesale electricity service." Order No was upheld by this Court in S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC (South Carolina), 762 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (per curiam). The petitioners in that case raised a litany of challenges to the Order, including that FERC was prevented from eliminating rights of first refusal because those provisions were entitled to the Mobile-Sierra presumption. The Mobile-Sierra presumption requires the Commission to "presume a contract rate for wholesale energy is just and reasonable" and prohibits the Commission from setting aside that rate unless the Commission finds that the rate "seriously harm[s] the public interest." In Order No. 1000, the Commission had reserved judgment on whether to apply this presumption to the rights of first refusal until evaluating the individual utilities' compliance filings, and so the court in South Carolina likewise reserved judgment as to how the presumption would apply. A later case presented the situation South Carolina anticipated in a petition for review of a FERC compliance filing determination in which FERC refused to apply the Mobile-Sierra presumption to a right of first refusal provision. The D.C. Circuit held that the Mobile-Sierra presumption was inapplicable because the presumption does not extend to "terms arrived at by horizontal competitors with a common interest to exclude any future competition." In the current case FERC applied the Mobile-Sierra presumption, albeit in its discretion, but rebutted the presumption, so the question is whether FERC satisfied the standard for rebutting the presumption. In addition, other petitioners claim that FERC went beyond Order No and impermissibly altered the balance of responsibility and power as between state governments and Independent Service Operator New England (ISO-NE). The D.C. Circuit held that FERC's determination that the right of first refusal provisions harmed the public interest was not inconsistent with FERC's prior order finding that record was not sufficient to determine applicability of the Mobile-Sierra presumption to the provisions. In addition, FERC's determination that the right of first refusal provisions harmed the public interest was not inconsistent with the prior determination approving an agreement in which FERC found that right of first refusal provision would have no adverse impact on third parties or the New England market. Moreover, FERC's analysis of the deleterious effects of the right of first refusal provisions was sufficiently particularized, and it was not required to identify empirical evidence to support its conclusion that right of first refusal provisions harmed public interest. FERC did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the transmission owners' evidence in determining that first refusal requirements harmed public interests, and FERC's rejection of
5 regional transmission organization's proposed procedure for complying with rule did not impermissibly conflict with or expand on Order No Freedom of Information Act; Waiver by Government of Exemption; Exemptions 6 and 7(c). Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. United States Department of Justice, 854 F.3d 675 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Wilkins, J.). This is the second time this case has been before the D.C. Circuit. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sought information related to the Department of Justice s (DOJ) investigation of former Majority Leader Tom DeLay arising out of its investigation of corruption involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Initially, its FOIA request was denied, relying on exemptions 3 and 7(A), (C), (D), & (E). The district court upheld the denial, but the D.C. Circuit reversed, finding that DOJ had "not met its burden to justify categorical withholding under Exemption 7(A) or 7(C)" and had not "provided sufficient detail at this stage for a court to determine whether a portion of the requested records may be withheld under Exemption 3, 7(D) or 7(E)." On remand, the DOJ released 124 pages of material but withheld 204 pages, invoking exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D) and 7(E). CREW again filed suit, challenging the withholding under exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C), but again the district court upheld the withholding. Again the D.C. Circuit reversed. First, it held that DOJ had waived the exemption 5 justification, because it had not raised it in the initial case, and under D.C. Circuit precedent, the failure initially to raise an exemption precludes, except in extraordinary cases, the ability to raise it later. FOIA's Exemption 6 encompasses "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," while Exemption 7(C) protects "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information... could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Because exemption 7(C) is broader than exemption 6, courts focus on 7(C) when both are invoked. Here the issue was the privacy of individuals, other than Delay, identified in the investigative files that had to be weighed against the public interest in disclosure of information that sheds light on the FBI s investigation. CREW did not contest the redaction of names of FBI or other federal government personnel. The court then held that identification of named or otherwise identified individuals who had not previously been publicly implicated in the corruption investigation were "categorically... exempt from disclosure, because there was no "compelling evidence that the agency [was] engaged in illegal activity." That left the individuals who had already been publicly identified either through agency press releases or testimony in open court as having been charged, convicted or otherwise implicated in connection with the public corruption investigation. Because these individuals had a diminished privacy interest, the court said, the categorical rule of non-disclosure did not apply to them. The court went on: These initial observations do not resolve the question of whether the Government redactions of [these] names were proper in this case. On the one hand, the substantial public interest present here may outweigh privacy interests that have been diminished by prior disclosures, including through guilty pleas and convictions. On the other hand, a responsive document could reveal new information about a person's conduct, going beyond the facts in the public record related to that person's conviction and sentencing. Under such circumstances, that
6 individual would retain a privacy interest in the non-disclosure of the new information. Because this weighing had not been done in the district court, the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the district court to undertake that particularized balancing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 REBECCA ALLISON GORDON, JANET AMELIA ADAMS and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
More informationDecember 15, In Brief by Theodore L. Garrett FOIA
December 15, 2016 In Brief by Theodore L. Garrett FOIA American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 836 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2016). The Eighth Circuit reversed a district court decision dismissing a reverse Freedom
More informationConservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Service
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2013 Case Summaries Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Service Katelyn J. Hepburn University of Montana School of Law, katelyn.hepburn@umontana.edu
More informationLEWIS COUNTY; SKAMANIA COUNTY; AND KLICKITAT COUNTY, WASHINGTON, Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellants v.
USCA Case #15-5304 Document #1676926 Filed: 05/26/2017 Page 1 of 24 15-5304 & 15-5334 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CARPENTERS INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL; SISKIYOU COUNTY,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 15-1620 Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC lllllllllllllllllllllpetitioner v. National Labor Relations Board lllllllllllllllllllllrespondent ------------------------------
More informationAPPEALS, LITIGATION and WORKING WITH THE GENERAL COUNSEL
APPEALS, LITIGATION and WORKING WITH THE GENERAL COUNSEL Scott A. Hodes Ramona Branch Oliver With special appreciation to Richard Huff for his contributions to the slide presentation APPEAL TIPS Make and
More informationCASE 0:13-cv ADM-TNL Document 115 Filed 01/27/15 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:13-cv-01751-ADM-TNL Document 115 Filed 01/27/15 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA American Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork Producers Council, Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM
More informationCase 1:16-cv RC Document 14 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:16-cv-02410-RC Document 14 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) DYLAN TOKAR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 16-2410 (RC) ) UNITED STATES
More informationUS AIRWAYS V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD: FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION UNDER THE RLA
US AIRWAYS V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD: FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION UNDER THE RLA By Robert A. Siegel O Melveny & Myers LLP Railway and Airline Labor Law Committee American
More informationCase 1:16-cv KBJ Document 15 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cv-01827-KBJ Document 15 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JASON LEOPOLD and RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 16-cv-1827 (KBJ
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I. INTRODUCTION
Islam v. Department of Homeland Security et al Doc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 MOHAMMAD SHER ISLAM, v. Plaintiff, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-00-jjt Document Filed 0// Page of 0 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, et al., v. Plaintiffs, United States Department
More informationNatarajan Venkataram v. Office of Information Policy
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-10-2014 Natarajan Venkataram v. Office of Information Policy Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ORDER ADOPTING PROTECTIVE ORDER. (Issued January 23, 2012)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. Docket No. ER11-1844-002 ORDER ADOPTING PROTECTIVE ORDER (Issued January 23, 2012) 1.
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-01771 Document 1 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE ) 1310 L Street, NW, 7 th Floor ) Washington, D.C. 20006 ) )
More informationCase 1:17-cv RCL Document 11-7 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:17-cv-01855-RCL Document 11-7 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 12 CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Civil Action No.: 17-1855 RCL Exhibit G DEFENDANT
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 535 U. S. (2002) 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 informationCase 1:09-cv FM Document 26 Filed 10/13/10 Page 2 of 17 I. Background The relevant facts are undisputed. (See ECF No. 22 ( Times Reply Mem. ) at
Case 1:09-cv-10437-FM Document 26 Filed 10/13/10 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------x THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY
More informationNo CONSOLIDATED WITH Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT H. RAY LAHR, Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 07-55709 CONSOLIDATED WITH Nos. 06-56717 & 06-56732 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT H. RAY LAHR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
More informationRECENT CASES. (codified at 42 U.S.C. 7661a 7661f). 1 See Eric Biber, Two Sides of the Same Coin: Judicial Review of Administrative Agency Action
982 RECENT CASES FEDERAL STATUTES CLEAN AIR ACT D.C. CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT EPA CANNOT PREVENT STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES FROM SUPPLEMENTING INADEQUATE EMISSIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS IN THE ABSENCE OF
More informationPROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) (1) SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER; AND (2) REQUEST FOR PREPARATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Case 8:15-cv-00229-JLS-RNB Document 95 Filed 04/19/18 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:4495 Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Terry Guerrero Deputy Clerk ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ) ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, ) 962 Wayne Ave, Suite 610 ) Silver Spring, MD 20910 ) Civil Action No. 18-cv-1720 ) Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ) ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 01-498 (RWR) ) OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ) TRADE REPRESENTATIVE,
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-00816 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 378 N. Main Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701 v. Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-55900, 04/11/2017, ID: 10392099, DktEntry: 59, Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Appellee, v. No. 14-55900 GREAT PLAINS
More informationKnowledge, Skills & Abilities. FOIA Redaction Workshop Denver, Colorado. Instructors. Scott Hodes, Esq.
American Society of Access Professionals FOIA Redaction Workshop Denver, Colorado June 18, 2015 Instructors Scott Hodes, Esq. Fred Sadler, Consultant (FDA/HHS FOI Officer, Retired) Knowledge, Skills &
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-739 In the Supreme Court of the United States SCENIC AMERICA, INC., PETITIONER v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationNational Labor Relations Act; Arbitrary and Capricious; Chenery I Doctrine.
National Labor Relations Act; Arbitrary and Capricious; Chenery I Doctrine. National Labor Relations Board v. Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, --- F.3d ----2016 WL 3407723 (D.C. Cir. June 21,
More informationSUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division ) PRISON LEGAL NEWS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 2008 CA 004598 ) Judge Michael Rankin v. ) Calendar No. 7 ) THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ) ) Defendant.
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Chicago Tribune Co. v. Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, 2014 IL App (4th) 130427 Appellate Court Caption CHICAGO TRIBUNE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC96000 PROVIDENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND, Respondent. PARIENTE, J. [May 24, 2001] REVISED OPINION We have for review a decision of
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:16-cv-00844-PJS-KMM Document 83 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA LABNET INC. D/B/A WORKLAW NETWORK, et al., v. PLAINTIFFS, UNITED STATES
More informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY CHELSEA RHODES and, ) ) PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL ) TREATMENT OF ANIMALS ) A Foreign Corporation ) ) Case No: Petitioners, ) ) Other Extraordinary Writ vs. ) Classification
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 41 September Term, 2010 MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE MARYLAND STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 41 September Term, 2010 MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE v. MARYLAND STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES Bell, C. J. Harrell Battaglia Greene *Murphy Barbera Eldridge,
More informationSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN RE: CUSTOMER SPECIFIC PRICING CONTRACTS : LARGE SYSTEM-SPECIFIC PRICING PLANS : DOCKET NO. 2676 REPORT AND ORDER I. Introduction.
More informationIn the Court of Appeals of Georgia
FOURTH DIVISION BARNES, P. J., RAY and MCMILLIAN, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
More informationCascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Indian Affairs
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2015-2016 Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Indian Affairs Hannah R. Seifert Alexander Blewett III School of Law at the University of Montana,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
NO. 14-1273 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NEW HAMPSHIRE RIGHT TO LIFE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2004 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationTable of Contents. Both petitioners and EPA are supported by numerous amici curiae (friends of the court).
Clean Power Plan Litigation Updates On October 23, 2015, multiple parties petitioned the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review EPA s Clean Power Plan and to stay the rule pending judicial review. This
More informationFILED State of California v. Little Sisters of the Poor, No
Case: 18-15144, 12/13/2018, ID: 11119524, DktEntry: 136-2, Page 1 of 9 FILED State of California v. Little Sisters of the Poor, No. 18-15144+ DEC 13 2018 Kleinfeld, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting: MOLLY
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term Argued: May 15, 2018 Decided: July 5, Docket No.
1 cv American Civil Liberties Union v. Department of Justice UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 01 Argued: May 1, 01 Decided: July, 01 Docket No. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REGARDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Case 4:17-cv-00031-BMM Document 232 Filed 12/07/18 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK and NORTH COAST RIVER
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS. No On Remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS No. 07-2349 ARNOLD C. KYHN, APPELLANT, V. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. On Remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
More informationCase 3:16-cv WHA Document 91 Filed 11/20/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case :-cv-000-wha Document Filed /0/ Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INFORMATION CENTER,
More informationFederal Energy Law Update. David Gilles Godfrey & Kahn S.C. February 27, 2015
Federal Energy Law Update David Gilles Godfrey & Kahn S.C. February 27, 2015 1 Congressional Legislation Of the 21 bills proposed in the current (114 th ) Congress, only one (the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval
More informationPRESENT: Lemons, C.J., Goodwyn, Mims, McClanahan, Kelsey, and McCullough, JJ., and Millette, S.J.
PRESENT: Lemons, C.J., Goodwyn, Mims, McClanahan, Kelsey, and McCullough, JJ., and Millette, S.J. TERRANCE KEVIN HALL OPINION BY v. Record No. 180197 SENIOR JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. December 20,
More informationNo. 132, September Term, 1993 PORTER HAYDEN COMPANY v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY. [Dismissal Of An Appeal For Lack Of A Final Judgment]
No. 132, September Term, 1993 PORTER HAYDEN COMPANY v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY [Dismissal Of An Appeal For Lack Of A Final Judgment] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 132 September Term,
More informationRULEMAKING th Annual Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Institute. May 18, 2017
RULEMAKING 101 13th Annual Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Institute May 18, 2017 Part 2: Judicial Review of Agency Rulemaking H. Thomas Byron, III Assistant Director Civil Division, Appellate
More informationCase: 3:11-cv bbc Document #: 487 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 1 of 7
Case: 3:11-cv-00178-bbc Document #: 487 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More informationHADACHECK v. SEBASTIAN, CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 239 U.S. 394; 60 L. Ed. 348; 36 S. Ct.
HADACHECK v. SEBASTIAN, CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 239 U.S. 394; 60 L. Ed. 348; 36 S. Ct. 143 Submitted October 22, 1915 December 20, 1915 PRIOR HISTORY:
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 378 N. Main Ave. Tucson, AZ 85702, v. Plaintiff, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1849 C Street NW, Room 3358
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-1182 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. EME HOMER CITY GENERATION, L.P., ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationFREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES Written Requests 1. A request desiring to inspect or receive a copy of a public record shall be made in writing addressed to the Freedom of Information
More informationUNITED STATES et al. v. BEAN. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit
OCTOBER TERM, 2002 71 Syllabus UNITED STATES et al. v. BEAN certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 01 704. Argued October 16, 2002 Decided December 10, 2002 Because
More informationNAMSDL Case Law Update
In This Issue This issue of NAMSDL Case Law Update focuses on seven cases related to the access to and use of prescription monitoring program ( PMP ) records. The issues addressed in these decisions involve:
More informationMerchants Automotive Group, Inc. Alpine Limousine Service, Inc., et al. BMW of N. Am., LLC and BMW of Manhattan, Inc. No.
MERRIMACK, SS SUPERIOR COURT Merchants Automotive Group, Inc. v. Alpine Limousine Service, Inc., et al. v. BMW of N. Am., LLC and BMW of Manhattan, Inc. No. 2015-CV-677 ORDER This case arises out of a
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 3, 2011 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 3, 2011 Session WILLIAM H. MANSELL v. BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE NORTH AMERICAN TIRE, LLC Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Smith County No. 2010CV36
More informationCity of Pontiac. FOIA Procedures and Guidelines
City of Pontiac FOIA Procedures and Guidelines Preamble: Statement of Principles Consistent with the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq., it is the policy of the City of Pontiac
More informationCase 1:17-cv KPF Document 39 Filed 10/04/17 Page 1 of 19 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Case 1:17-cv-02542-KPF Document 39 Filed 10/04/17 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK... x KATE DOYLE, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE, CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS
More informationCase 1:14-cv APM Document 24 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:14-cv-01311-APM Document 24 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, v. Plaintiff, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
More information2017COA143. No. 16CA1361, Robertson v. People Criminal Law Criminal Justice Records Sealing. In this consolidated appeal addressing petitions to seal
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION
Case 4:17-cv-00029-BMM Document 210 Filed 08/15/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK and NORTH COAST RIVER
More informationSafari Club International v. Jewell
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2016-2017 Safari Club International v. Jewell Jacob Schwaller University of Montana, Missoula, jacob.schwaller@umontana.edu Follow this and
More information2218 HOMEWOOD WAY, CARMICHAEL, CA PHONE (916) FAX (916)
2218 HOMEWOOD WAY, CARMICHAEL, CA 95608 PHONE (916) 487-7000 FAX (916) 487-7999 WWW.CALAWARE.ORG INFO@CALAWARE.ORG With over 25 years of experience in California, specializing in: The California Public
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ In her capacity as the President of Defend Our Freedoms Foundation 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100 Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688 Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603 E-Mail:
More informationMount Clemens Public Library Freedom of Information Act Policies and Procedures
Preamble: Statement of Principles Mount Clemens Public Library Freedom of Information Act Policies and Procedures It is the policy Mount Clemens Public Library that all persons, except those who are serving
More informationMichael B. Wigmore Direct Phone: Direct Fax: January 14, 2009 VIA HAND DELIVERY
Michael B. Wigmore Direct Phone: 202.373.6792 Direct Fax: 202.373.6001 michael.wigmore@bingham.com VIA HAND DELIVERY Jeffrey N. Lüthi, Clerk of the Panel Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Thurgood
More informationFREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Federal and New York State Laws
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Federal and New York State Laws Janette Clarke May 2, 2009 What is the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)? The initial Freedom of Information Act was created so that the
More informationClean Water Act Section 401: Background and Issues
Clean Water Act Section 401: Background and Issues Claudia Copeland Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy July 2, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov 97-488 Summary Section
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 14-646 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States SAI, v. Petitioner, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. v. : Civil Action No. GLR MEMORANDUM OPINION
Case 1:17-cv-01253-GLR Document 46 Filed 03/22/19 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BLUE WATER BALTIMORE, INC., et al., : Plaintiffs, : v. : Civil Action No.
More informationChicken or Egg: Applying the Age- Old Question to Class Waivers in Employee Arbitration Agreements
Chicken or Egg: Applying the Age- Old Question to Class Waivers in Employee Arbitration Agreements By Bonnie Burke, Lawrence & Bundy LLC and Christina Tellado, Reed Smith LLP Companies with employees across
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
Rel: January 4, 2019 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** ***
Case: 5:17-cv-00351-DCR Doc #: 19 Filed: 03/15/18 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 440 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington THOMAS NORTON, et al., V. Plaintiffs,
More informationHOUGHTON COUNTY. FOIA Procedures and Guidelines
HOUGHTON COUNTY FOIA Procedures and Guidelines Preamble: Statement of Principles It is the policy of Houghton County that all persons, except those incarcerated, consistent with the Michigan Freedom of
More informationRights & Responsibilities: The Rights of Requesters and the Responsibilities of Southampton County under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
Rights & Responsibilities: The Rights of Requesters and the Responsibilities of Southampton County under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act The Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), located
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 544 U. S. (2005) 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 informationOF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT. vs. ** CASE NO. 3D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2004 STEPHEN P. ROLAND, ** Appellant, ** vs. ** CASE NO. 3D02-1405 FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY, ** LLC f/k/a FLORIDA EAST COAST
More informationCase 1:14-cv KMW Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:14-cv-20945-KMW Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 1 of 9 AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS CIVIL DIVISION. v. CASE NO.: COMPLAINT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Washington County Circuit Court Kyle Sylvester, Circuit Clerk 2018-Jul-11 09:12:04 72CV-18-1805 C04D01 : 5 Pages IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS CIVIL DIVISION
More informationCITY OF GROSSE POINTE FARMS WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT PROCEDURES & GUIDELINES
CITY OF GROSSE POINTE FARMS WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT PROCEDURES & GUIDELINES Preamble: Statement of Principles Consistent with the provisions of the Michigan Freedom of Information
More information3RD 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 informationI. PURPOSE To establish procedures and guidelines governing the release of public records pursuant to Public Act 442 of 1976, as amended.
Page 1 of 15 I. PURPOSE To establish procedures and guidelines governing the release of public records pursuant to Public Act 442 of 1976, as amended. SCOPE: This policy established a process and procedures
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 17-5716 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TIMOTHY D. KOONS, KENNETH JAY PUTENSEN, RANDY FEAUTO, ESEQUIEL GUTIERREZ, AND JOSE MANUEL GARDEA, PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL.
No. 05-445 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationAdministrative & Judicial Challenges to Environmental Permits. Greg L. Johnson
Administrative & Judicial Challenges to Environmental Permits Greg L. Johnson A Professional Law Corporation New Orleans Lafayette Houston 1 Outline Challenges to Permits issued by LDEQ Public Trust Doctrine
More informationInterstate Transportation of Hazardous Waste Materials
Interstate Transportation of Hazardous Waste Materials by Greg Cooper Publicity focusing on the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste has risen tremendously within the United States over the past decade.
More informationThe Supreme Court Decision in Empagran
The Supreme Court Decision On June 14, 2004, the United States Supreme Court issued its much anticipated opinion in Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd. v. Empagran S.A, 2004 WL 1300131 (2004). This closely watched
More informationLAW REVIEW, OCTOBER 1995 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT REGULATES CRITICAL HABITAT MODIFICATION ON PRIVATE LAND
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT REGULATES CRITICAL HABITAT MODIFICATION ON PRIVATE LAND James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1995 James C. Kozlowski Private property rights are not absolute. Most notably, local zoning
More informationThe Supreme Court will shortly be considering
Arbitration at a Cross Road: Will the Supreme Court Hold the Federal Arbitration Act Trumps Federal Labor Laws? By John Jay Range and Bryan Cleveland The Supreme Court will shortly be considering three
More informationIs Chinese Private Antitrust Litigation Ready to Take Off? By Jiangxiao Athena Hou 1 (Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP)
Is Chinese Private Antitrust Litigation Ready to Take Off? By Jiangxiao Athena Hou 1 (Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP) June 2015 China s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) provides for private right of action.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-0-BEN-BLM Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DANIEL TARTAKOVSKY, MOHAMMAD HASHIM NASEEM, ZAHRA JAMSHIDI, MEHDI HORMOZAN, vs. Plaintiffs,
More information~n ~e ~upreme g;ourt o[ t~ i~init ~ ~tat~
No. 08-881 ~:~LED / APR 152009 J / OFFICE 3F TI.~: ~ c lk J ~n ~e ~upreme g;ourt o[ t~ i~init ~ ~tat~ MARTIN MARCEAU, ET AL., PETITIONERS V. BLACKFEET HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
More informationNo NORTH STAR ALASKA HOUSING CORP., Petitioner,
No. 10-122 NORTH STAR ALASKA HOUSING CORP., Petitioner, V. UNITED STATES, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit REPLY BRIEF FOR
More informationSECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS OF RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, INC. ARTICLE I Name. ARTICLE II Fiscal Year
SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS OF RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, INC. ARTICLE I Name The name of the corporation is Riverview Hospital Foundation, Inc., d/b/a Riverview Health Foundation (the Corporation
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS
MICHAEL COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA GENE BY GENE, LTD., a Texas Limited Liability Company
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. v. Civil Action No (CKK) MEMORANDUM OPINION (March 28, 2004)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 01-2447 (CKK) NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants.
More information