Datasets:

coastalcph

/

lex_glue

like 44

[ "holding that a conclusory opinion may be rejected", "holding that the weight given to a treating physicians opinion is limited if the opinion consists only of conclusory statements", "holding that the weight given a treating physicians opinion is limited if the opinion consists only of conclusory statements", "holding that a treating physicians opinion may be rejected if it is brief conclusory and unsupported by medical evidence", "holding that allegations against nondiverse defendants must be factual not conclusory because conclusory allegations do not state a claim" ]

[ "holding that evidence in first trial concerning firearms in which defendant was acquitted of drug and rico conspiracies could be used in second trial on firearms offenses because evidence was collateral to elements of offenses in second trial", "holding that the defendant could appeal the district courts order granting a new trial because his right not to be subjected to a second trial for the same offense could not be remedied once the second trial has taken place", "holding that a city which brought an action for forfeiture of firearms recovered from a drug suspects residence was collaterally estopped from introducing evidence of drug possession thus it could not prove the firearms were used in drug transactions and could not forfeit them", "holding that drug offenses and taxevasion offenses were properly joined for trial because the likely source of income for which defendant had evaded taxes was drug distribution", "holding admissible police officers testimony that firearms are commonly used in drug trafficking" ]

[ "holding that a plaintiff had standing to attack an entire ordinance including portions of the ordinance not applied to the plaintiff", "holding that a party may not invoke the capable of repetition yet evading review exception where its failure to obtain prompt relief has prevented judicial review", "holding also that the ordinance failed to provide for prompt judicial review", "holding that because here the statutes in issue provide for judicial review via citizen suit provisions yet do not set forth a standard for that review judicial review is limited to apa review on the administrative record", "holding that the llupa does not provide for judicial review of a request to change a comprehensive zoning plan" ]

[ "holding all that is required to impose a duty to warn is that the defendant knew or should have known of a specific threat made to harm a specific person", "holding that the threat of irreparable harm must be immediate", "holding that theft from the person is not a crime of violence", "holding that theft from the person of another under wisconsin law is not a crime of violence as a matter of law and can only qualify as such if there are sufficient facts in the indictment to indicate that a serious threat of violence occurred", "holding that a threat to harm another person is a crime of violence" ]

[ "holding that because a valid arbitration clause existed the parties had to arbitrate all disputes when the subject matter of the dispute has a reasonable relationship to the subject matter of the contract", "holding that there was subject matter jurisdiction in dispute relating to archbishops refusal to appoint a candidate to chaplaincy position because he was seeking relief as beneficiary of a trust but further finding that the determination of what the essential qualifications of a chaplain are and whether the candidate possesses them was an ecclesiastical matter which will be accepted as conclusive in secular courts", "holding that because the contract dispute between the parties in this case constitutes a justiciable matter that is cognizable in our trial courts our courts had subject matter jurisdiction", "holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act", "holding that where an objection was made and trial courts ruling was treated as conclusive by state and defense counsel there was no need for further objections when evidence was presented to jury" ]

[ "holding that a claim is not moot where there is a viable damages claim", "holding that a good faith belief that a firearm is inoperable is not a viable defense to 18 usc 922g", "holding that good faith is a defense to the willful filing of false statements under 18 usc 1001", "holding for the purposes of 18 usc 924e that being a felon in possession of a firearm is not a violent felony as defined in 18 usc 924e2b", "holding that the test for good faith is the actual belief of the party and not the reasonableness of that belief" ]

[ "recognizing that the equal protection clause proscribes discrimination against whiteanglos", "holding that a graduatedrate income tax violates the uniformity clause", "holding that the statement of current monthly income was the presumptive amount of projected disposable income but presumption could be rebutted by the debt or upon a showing of substantial change of circumstances", "holding that unlike the uniformity clause the united states constitution does not require equalization across all potential subclassifications of real property", "holding that the uniformity clause proscribes the unequal treatment of certain individuals based upon their income" ]

[ "holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause", "holding no error occurred in excluding portion of statement offered by defendant because the rejected portion of the conversation in no manner explains or modifies that portion of the conversation which came into evidence", "holding that an offender convicted under the bestiality portion of the criminal sodomy statute does not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of die portion of the statute that criminalizes homosexual conduct", "holding that clear language in one portion of a later may cause ambiguity in another portion to dissipate", "holding that ex parte young applied to plaintiffs claims against the criminal portion of the statute" ]

[ "holding that daubert applies not only to testimony based on scientific knowledge but also to testimony based on technical and other specialized knowledge", "holding seventh state petition for postconviction relief which was based on newly discovered evidence but rejected by the state courts because the evidence was not newly discovered was properly filed", "recognizing under fre 702 that there is no clear line dividing testimony based on scientific knowledge from testimony based on technical or other specialized knowledge holding that a single flexible test for reliability applies to all expert testimony", "holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence where the evidence would serve only to impeach testimony", "recognizing that rimmasch is not intended to apply to all expert testimony but only for testimony based on newly discovered principles quotations and citation omitted" ]

[ "holding that the statute incorporated all the rights and obligations of the contract emphasis added", "holding that an application is pending from the time it is first filed emphasis added", "holding that a federal court has jurisdiction over the question of whether truck was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the accident emphasis added", "holding that a litigant did not waive a claim because it was the appellee in the intermediate appellate court emphasis added", "holding that the court possesses jurisdiction to review contractor performance evaluations if the pertinent requirements of the cda are met emphasis added" ]

[ "holding a prior case was not precedent on an issue when the issue was not contested", "holding that issue in motion for rehearing is waived if original brief is not sufficient to acquaint the court with the issue and does not present an argument that would allow the court to decide the issue", "holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court", "holding that a policy nearly identical to that at issue in the present case was reinsurance", "holding that claim preclusion did not apply even though the legal theory at issue in that case was addressed in a previous case because the case at issue was based on a different set of operative facts" ]

[ "holding that court did not prejudice defendant by limiting his counsel to preestablished limitations on inter alia the scope of crossexamination", "holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying inter alia costs for internal copying of documents by prevailing defendants counsel produced for discovery", "holding inter alia that expert testimony was not required to prove damages for emotional distress in an abuse of process claim", "holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted", "holding that a decision to move did not turn upon labor costs but rather was motivated by inter alia a foreclosure action" ]

[ "holding that the injured passenger of a cab was entitled to summary judgment against the driver because the prima facie proof is so convincing that the inference of negligence is inescapable", "holding the standard of proof in summary judgment rulings is the same as it would be at trial", "holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence", "holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case", "holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review" ]

[ "holding that officers positioning himself next to his patrol car with gun drawn and then firing was a discretionary use of deadly force", "holding that deadly force was unreasonable where the suspect possessed a gun but was not pointing it at the officers and was not facing the officers when they shot", "holding that instruction on use of deadly force was required where appellant was aware of the decedents violent history decedent had a gun in his car and appellant used force only after decedent had made an attempt to approach his car", "holding that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure", "holding that injury of plaintiff who was detained in negligently parked patrol car that along with another patrol car was struck by thirdparty vehicle did not arise out of use or operation of patrol car within meaning of ttcas motorvehicle waiver rather patrol car merely furnished condition that made injury possible" ]

[ "holding trial court reversibly erred in not permitting appellant to withdraw his plea where court erroneously stated appellant could appeal motion was in fact not dispositive and appellant was entitled to rely on the courts statement", "holding that where the appellant remained at the scene rendered aid and gave his name to the police the evidence was insufficient to convict him under section 3742 even though the appellant initially lied about his involvement in the accident", "holding no error in rejecting the appellants proffered instruction even though that statement was based on language from case law when the amci instruction was a proper statement of the law", "holding that though there was no express statement that the appellant had committed perjury the clear impact of the specific language in nine sentences was that the appellant lied while under oath which weighed in favor of an actionable statement", "holding that hearing officer had no obligation under 38 cfr 3103c2 to advise appellant as to physicians statement because that statement would not have helped prove the claim that is that statement would not have provided a nexus with the veterans service" ]

[ "holding that imposing civil liability for acts committed to judicial discretion would contribute not to principled and fearless decisionmaking but to intimidation", "holding that judges have immunity from suit for judicial acts", "recognizing judicial immunity for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction", "holding that in the context of erisa successor liability is not an independent cause of action but simply a theory for imposing liability based on a predecessors erisa violation", "holding that the ban on judicial review of actions committed to agency discretion by law is jurisdictional" ]

[ "holding reasonable and articulable suspicion existed to support an investigatory stop of a vehicle where the defendant and driver were observed loitering at a closed shopping center shortly before midnight no other vehicles were in the parking lot and the two men abruptly and hurriedly returned to their vehicle which was parked out of general public view", "holding automobile exeeption did not apply to warrantless search of vehicle where vehicle was not readily mobile because the vehicle was legally parked in parking lot occupants of vehicle were seated on a bench in the playground near the parking lot police officers surrounded the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was handcuffed for safety purposes", "holding that officer had reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle when confidential informant personally observed the vehicle provided a description of the vehicle and its direction detailed the basis for her suspicion that the vehicle was engaged in illegal activity and had previously given reliable information that led to the successful apprehension of individuals engaged in various criminal activity", "holding reasonable and articulable suspicion existed to support the investigatory stop of a vehicle in view of the time of day and the officers prior knowledge of reports of criminal activity in the area", "holding that a mere parking violation justified the investigatory stop of choudrys vehicle" ]

[ "holding that no abandonment of property as homestead was shown merely because after house located on property was destroyed in hurricane debtor had quit premises allowed property to become overgrown with weeds and posted a for sale sign", "holding that regardless of whether the property was held as tenants in common or by the entirety the husband was entitled to hold property as a homestead", "holding chapter 13 plan funded by sale of property was not feasible where the debtor had not stated the time period or terms of the sale and no provision was made for failure to sell the property", "holding that the property held by the revocable trust in which the trustee was the beneficiary and the property was his permanent residence was a constitutionally protected homestead property", "holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate" ]

[ "holding that a party is not entitled to pursue a separate action for deficiency judgment where the foreclosure complaint includes a prayer for a deficiency judgment and the foreclosure court reserves jurisdiction to enter a deficiency judgment", "holding that after a judgment entry grants a decree of foreclosure and order of sale the foreclosure action cannot be dismissed as the judgment is final", "holding that a foreclosure judgment was not subject to federal review under rookerfeldman and noting that the fact that plaintiff alleges that the foreclosure judgment was procured by fraud and conspiracy does not change that result", "holding that a failure to comply with the foreclosure statutes invalidates a foreclosure sale", "holding that 24 foreclosure was substantial under the facts of that case" ]

[ "holding that a panel of this court cannot overturn a prior panels decision", "holding that precedent set by our panels binds all subsequent panels", "holding that a prior panel decision is binding on subsequent panels", "recognizing that a prior panels holding is binding on all subsequent panels", "recognizing that our decision in cabello binds all subsequent panels of this court as to aiding and abetting liability" ]

[ "holding that exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry where officers were faced with a call reporting burglary in progress", "holding that police in responding to a domestic violence call were not justified in engaging in a warrantless entry because the assault was over and there was no real danger that the assault was about to resume", "holding in an impliedconsent case that a warrantless police entry was unlawful in part because the police did not request entry", "holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry", "holding that counsel was deficient when he failed to object to error in jury charge referring to aggravated assault when the charge was assault on a public servant" ]

[ "holding that the double jeopardy clause did not bar charging the defendant with both receipt and possession of child pornography where the defendant was charged with possessing a set of files that did not form the basis for a separate receipt count", "holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court", "holding that appellants specific factual denial of receipt was sufficient evidence to defeat the presumption of receipt raised by a docket entry showing mailing", "holding that the double jeopardy clause did not bar resentencing on counts that were affirmed on appeal when a sentence of imprisonment on another count was vacated", "holding that defendant did not have standing to raise facial challenge to validity of aggravated assault statutes for their risk of creating double jeopardy grounds because he himself was not charged in way that created double jeopardy" ]

[ "holding that where the writings on file were insufficient to constitute an effective charge a charge had not been effectively filed despite the fact that the eeoc had assigned the case a charge number", "holding that a charge not taken under oath or affirmation is not a valid charge", "holding that the omission of an element from the jury charge is subject to harmlesserror review", "holding that trial court did not err in refusing to give charge because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his requested charge was tailored to the evidence", "holding that statutory references in charge did not cure the omission of essential elements in the challenged counts of the charge" ]

[ "holding that legislative functions such as powers of zoning and rezoning cannot be delegated", "holding that utah const art vi 1 limits legislatures ability to delegate legislative powers or functions to others", "holding legislatures intent to change tax liability retroactively was permissive exercise of legislative power", "holding that crime definition and penalty powers are essential legislative functions that cannot constitutionally be delegated by the utah legislature to any other person or body", "recognizing that the general assembly can delegate discretionary functions to administrative bodies and officers and holding that a statute does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power if it establishes an intelligible principle to which the administrative body or officer must conform and if it establishes a procedure for effective review" ]

[ "holding that change of circumstances is not prerequisite to additional 3583e2 modification", "holding that a hearing is required when a modification of parenting time would change the established custodial environment", "holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody", "holding that a custodial parents move to a foreign state without more is not a substantial change of circumstances that would support a modification of custody", "holding that parties inability to agree on which private high school child would attend constituted substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of parenting plan" ]

[ "holding that a sellers superior knowledge of a product does not justify imposition of a fiduciary relationship in the absence of a conscious assumption of fiduciary duties", "holding that a statutorilyimposed fiduciary obligation created an express trust fiduciary relationship for purposes of 523a4", "holding that under delaware law the fiduciary duties of officers are the same as those of directors", "holding general fiduciary duties of confidence trust loyalty and good faith insufficient to establish the necessary fiduciary relationship for purposes of 523a4", "recognizing that fiduciary liability requires not onlya repose of trust but an assumption of a duty and breach of that duty" ]

[ "holding attorney must have express authority to settle a clients claims", "holding that defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in statements made to companion while seated in police car", "holding that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in utility records under either state or federal constitution", "holding that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a package sent via federal express when the defendant signed an air bill that gave federal express the authority to search the package", "holding that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth" ]

[ "holding that prisoners have no legitimate expectation of privacy and that the fourth amendments prohibition on unreasonable searches does not apply in prison cells", "holding that prisoners do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells", "holding that individuals have no expectation of privacy in their license registration or insurance documents and citing outofstate cases that have held that individuals do not have a privacy interest in their registration records", "holding under smith that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in telephony metadata", "holding that society recognizes a reasonable expectation of privacy" ]

[ "holding that mers was not the beneficiary of a deed of trust under the oregon trust deed act absent conveyance to mers of the beneficial right to repayment and that mers could not hold or transfer legal title to the deed as the lenders nominee", "holding that mers is capable of being a valid beneficiary of a deed of trust and that while entitlement to enforce both the deed of trust and the promissory note is required to foreclose nothing requires those documents to be unified from the point of inception of the loan", "holding that a beneficiary under a deed of trust was entitled to reformation of the grantors deed", "holding that when note and deed of trust were null and void and of no legal effect because of forgery assignee of note and deed of trust nevertheless had equitable lien upon property for value of construction work for which note and deed of trust were given", "holding that mers is an ineligible beneficiary within the terms of the washington deed of trust act if it never held the promissory note or other debt instrument secured by the deed of trust and that characterizing mers as the beneficiary has the capacity to deceive and may give rise to an action under the consumer protection act" ]

[ "holding that the agency did not have an obligation to search for and produce the documents the plaintiff claimed entitlement to because the plaintiffs foia request gave no indication that she sought those particular documents", "holding that only the person or entity whose name appears in the foia request is the real party in interest and thus has standing to bring subsequent foia enforcement action", "holding that when a plaintiff has no pending foia request with an agency and has not averred that he intends to make foia requests to the agency in the future any claim of future injury is simply too speculative and remote to give him standing", "holding that where a foia plaintiff seeks sensitive foreignaffairs information the court should give substantial weight to a government affidavit that the information is exempt from foia but nevertheless consider contrary evidence presented by the plaintiff", "holding that foia exemptions are not mandatory bars to disclosure because the purpose of foia is to provide broad disclosure of government documents" ]

[ "holding that north carolina crime of larceny from the person was a crime of violence under the residual clause of the career offender guideline", "holding a defendant could not receive an enhanced sentenced under the residual clause of 4b12a2 following johnson", "holding that the texas offense of possession of a prohibited weapon could only qualify as a crime of violence under the residual clause of 4b12a2", "holding that california residential burglary is categorically a crime of violence under the residual clause of ussg 4b12a2 which requires the criminal conduct to present a serious potential risk of physical injury to another", "holding that possession of a weapon is not in an of itself a crime" ]

[ "recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard", "holding that plain error review is used for unpreserved challenges to the method by which the district court arrived at a sentence including arguments that the sentencing court failed to explain adequately the sentence imposed under the statutory factors in 3553a", "holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable", "holding statutory error harmless where district court imposed the highest available sentence under guidelines range and considered sentencing to the statutory maximum", "holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of 3553a" ]

[ "holding that issue raised before alj but not nlrb was not preserved", "holding that despite the merits of the argument the appellant raised on appeal the issue was not preserved for judicial review because it was not raised before the administrative agency", "holding issues not raised before the district court are not preserved for appeal", "holding that because the appellant did not present to the administrative agency the argument it raised before this court the issue was not preserved and holding that even if preserved the argument failed", "holding an issue not raised to the family court is not preserved for appellate review" ]

[ "holding that information from confidential informant was reliable and credible where affidavit referred to previous instances in which informant provided correct information to police affiants own investigation and controlled buy of contraband confirmed information and second informant supplied same information to police", "holding that trial court improperly dismissed charges pretrial because the state did not disclose the identity of a confidential informant", "holding that because the defendants offer of proof failed to show that the affiant was untruthful the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order disclosure of the informant", "holding that the district court was within its discretion not to order disclosure of the governments confidential informant where the informant only helped orchestrate the search that led to discovery of incriminating evidence not the crimes themselves and could not testify to any relevant fact", "holding corroborating evidence sufficient that officer drove informant to defendants house saw defendant admit informant and saw informant come out with drugs and defendants voice was identified on audio tape of transaction" ]

[ "holding that accretion had not occurred notwithstanding that there was integration of operations similarity of employee skills functions and working conditions and contact between employees at separate locations because there was neither employee interchange nor common supervision", "holding employee resigned and was not constructively discharged because there was no evidence that employer deliberately created working conditions that led to her resignation", "holding that notwithstanding fact that employer brought suit in its own name pursuant to ocga 349111 c only for the liquidated amount that had been paid to the employee in workers compensation benefits after employee failed to file his own tort action within one year of injury employee was not precluded from bringing his own separate action to recover for personal injuries and loss of consortium but noting that employee received notice of employers suit only after filing his own action suggesting that court in which employers action was pending had wrongly denied the employees motion to intervene to which motion employer had objected noting that if employee had not moved to intervene in other action employees separate action would have been barred by laches and holding that thirdparty tortfeasor could move for mandatory joinder of the employer in the employees action", "holding employee could proceed against employer in action for fraudulent misrepresentation where employees complaint alleged inter alia employee was regularly exposed to lead fumes and dust at place of employment employer tested employees blood to monitor lead levels employer willfully and intentionally withheld employees test results which showed employee had developed leadrelated diseases and employer subsequently altered those results to induce employee to continue working for employer employee further alleged employers concealment of employees condition prevented employee from reducing his exposure to lead and obstructed him from receiving appropriate medical treatment and that delay in treatment resulted in aggravation of employees injury", "holding service on corporation proper where process server went to corporate defendants headquarters identified himself to an employee of corporate defendant and stated that he was there to serve legal papers and the employee then directed him to another employee who accepted service even though neither employee was authorized to accept service and neither represented that she was in fact so authorized because both were obviously corporate defendant employees and the employee redelivered the summons and complaint to an employee authorized to accept service on the same date" ]

[ "holding arguments not appropriately developed in brief are waived", "holding arguments first raised in reply brief are forfeited", "holding that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are forfeited", "holding that arguments which are not sufficiently developed are waived", "holding that arguments not fully developed until a reply brief are waived" ]

[ "holding that when determining prejudice under the objective test relevant considerations include 1 whether the extrinsic evidence was received by the jury and the manner in which it was received 2 whether it was available to the jury for a lengthy period of time 3 whether it was discussed and considered extensively by the jury 4 whether it was introduced before a jury verdict was reached and if so at what point during the deliberations and 5 whether it was reasonably likely to affect the verdict considering the strength of the governments case and whether the governments case outweighed any possible prejudice caused by the extrinsic evidence", "holding the standard of review in juvenile adjudication is whether after viewing evidence in light most favorable to the state any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt", "holding that state courts determination that the petitioner was competent to waive his right to pursue further postconviction review of his claims was a factual one and therefore presumed correct under the federal habeas corpus statute", "holding that when reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a state criminal conviction the relevant question under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt", "holding that the state crime under review was not one of general prohibition before considering whether the evidence had any sinister significance in relation to the presumed culpability component" ]

[ "holding prosecutors statement to jury on summation that trial court had previously found defendants two confessions voluntary constituted reversible error even though trial court gave hampton charge because it failed to instruct jury to disregard prosecutors statement", "holding that trial courts jury charge did not amount to reversible error given that plaintiff failed to show she was prejudiced by inapplicable portion of trial courts charge", "holding that improper statement was rendered harmless because the district court sustained the defendants objection and admonished the jury to disregard the statement", "holding no injury to ashley shown by statement to widow of murder victim that was not in evidence because trial court gave sua sponte instruction to jury to disregard statement and statement did not contradict ashleys testimony", "holding that trial judges admonition of the jury to disregard prosecutors comments on the defendants failure to testify did not cure the error" ]

[ "recognizing that exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of statute serves as only effective deterrent of such violations", "recognizing as well that such uninhibited communication serves the public interest by facilitating the administration of appropriate treatment", "recognizing that the 1 year limitation period of 2244d1 quite plainly serves the wellrecognized interest in the finality of state court judgments", "holding that appellate court may raise issues of default sua sponte where necessary to protect inter alia the finality of federal criminal judgments", "holding constitutional a statute providing that a mineral interest would lapse to the surface owner if the interest owner either made no use of the interest or failed to file a claim with the state within a twenty year period" ]

[ "recognizing that davis was concerned only with the right to counsel and not the right to remain silent", "recognizing fifth amendment right to be informed of right to remain silent to have questions cease and to consult with an attorney before being subjected to psychiatric examination that may be used against defendant in capital sentencing proceedings", "holding that a suspects invocation of the right to remain silent must be unequivocal to require that police questioning cease", "holding that prior to engaging in custodial interrogation police must warn a suspect that he has a right to remain silent that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney either retained or appointed", "holding that a defendant who is subject to custodial interrogation must be advised in clear and unequivocal language of his constitutional right to remain silent and his right to a lawyer" ]

[ "holding that defendant who was associated with the enterprise and engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity when he repeatedly violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws was not liable under 1962c because he had no part in directing the enterprises affairs", "holding that to prevail under civil rico plaintiff must prove that defendants participated in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity", "holding that wire and mail fraud statutes are construed identically", "holding that a pattern of racketeering activity required multiple illegal schemes", "holding that plaintiffs allegation that defendant engaged in multiple instances of mail and wire fraud did not allege pattern of racketeering activity with sufficient particularity" ]

[ "holding that a district court may not rely on a charging document without first establishing that the crime charged was the same crime for which the defendant was convicted", "holding that counsel did not admit the defendant was guilty of a crime when counsel noted that if the evidence established the commission of any crime that crime was voluntary manslaughter not murder", "holding that where court informed jurors that the defendant had escaped from custody the trial judge acted within his judicial capacity and did not testify ", "holding collateral crime evidence that defendant was an escaped convict was presumptively harmful", "holding it is fundamental error to convict a defendant of crime not charged and which is not a lesser included offense of the charged crime" ]

[ "holding that employee who frequently missed work was not a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of her job either with or without a reasonable accommodation as required to support disability discrimination and reasonable accommodation claims under the rehabilitation act", "holding that the appellant failed to establish that she was entitled to an accommodation under the ada because there was nothing in the record to demonstrate that she could not perform the functions and activities of daily life or that her impairment and symptoms substantially limited her functions and activities", "holding that the disabled individual bears the initial burden of proposing an accommodation and showing that that accommodation is objectively reasonable and that the defendant was entitled to prevail because the plaintiffs proposed accommodation of remaining on unpaid medical leave until another customer service or receptionist position opened up was not a reasonable accommodation under the ada", "holding that ada may obligate employer to reassign disabled employee who can no longer even with reasonable accommodation perform the essential functions of her job", "holding that employee allegedly suffering from fibromyalgia was not qualified individual and thus could not maintain ada claim challenging transfer and termination inasmuch as she was unable to perform essential functions of those positions with or without accommodation employee did not dispute supervisors evaluations documenting her performance deficiencies and provided no medical evidence that requested accommodation would have improved her performance" ]

[ "holding that a purchaser of prefabricated wall panels for installation could bring a claim under the njcfa", "holding that while parents may not bring a title ix claim as individuals they may bring such claim on behalf of a deceased child", "holding that plaintiff had standing to bring a rico conspiracy claim despite his inability to bring a substantive rico claim", "holding that plaintiffs may bring a section 1983 claim for damages to vindicate their rights under idea", "holding child could bring action for enticement of parent" ]

[ "holding that a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the error", "holding circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea where defendant was not indicted for the charge to which he pled guilty but signed a sentencing sheet which established defendant was notified of the charge to which he pled guilty", "holding that any error that court may have made in admitting inadmissible evidence was harmless because government presented overwhelming evidence establishing defendants guilt", "holding that admitting evidence of attempted suicide was error when defendant had already pled guilty and attempt was not probative of guilt", "holding that in conjunction an information with a narrow charge and an abstract of judgment indicating that a defendant pled guilty to that charge prove the precise elements of the offense to which the defendant pled guilty" ]

[ "recognizing repayment of damages to society as remedial", "holding that imposing supervised release condition that defendant report to his probation officer upon reentry into the united states is not plain error", "holding parolee voluntarily agreed to consentsearch provision as a condition of release into society", "holding defendant agreed to submit to searches as a condition of probation", "recognizing loss of society damages as remedy available under general maritime law" ]

[ "holding that in deciding whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of clearly established law that is for the court but also whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful in light of the information the officer had", "holding that while the state must prove that the alleged victim was a law enforcement officer who was engaged in the lawful execution or performance of a legal duty the technical illegality of that action does not justify resisting with violence or battering the officer", "holding that the trial court committed fundamental error in not instructing the jury on the knowledge element of the offense of resisting an officer without violence when that element was in dispute at trial", "holding that an officer or employee of the tennessee valley authority was not an officer or employee acting under the authority of the united states or any department or any officer of the government thereof within the meaning of a criminal statute first enacted in 1884", "holding police officer who was shot by occupier of premises could not recover from premises owner for injuries the officer should have reasonably expected to sustain while engaged in the line of duty" ]

[ "holding that survey with improperly idefined sample was not probative", "holding that plain error review was not available for alleged improperly admitted testimony", "holding that survey evidence offered to show actual confusion was properly excludable under rule 403 when it was so flawed that its probative value was outweighed by the risk of prejudice or confusion", "holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative", "holding that drug use is not probative of character for truthfulness" ]

[ "recognizing that even as to an issue that could arguably be viewed as a matter of public concern if the employee has raised the issue solely in order to further his own employment interest his first amendment right to comment on that issue is entitled to little weight", "holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it ", "holding that a partys failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waived the issue even though the party raised the issue in his reply brief", "holding that where an issue is raised in the district court but raised late and the district court declines to deem the issue waived the issue may be raised on appeal", "holding if an employee does not speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern the employee has no first amendment cause of action based on his or her employers reaction to the speech" ]

[ "holding that the denial of pcra relief cannot stand unless the petitioner was afforded the assistance of counsel", "holding that under section 9543a1 a pcra petitioner is not eligible for relief where the petitioner has completed serving the sentence before final adjudication on the petition", "holding pcra statute requires that petitioner must be currently serving sentence of imprisonment parole or probation on underlying crime not only when petition is filed but also when decision on petition is rendered", "holding that the plain language of this section requires the denial of relief for a petitioner who has finished serving his sentence", "holding the bia did not abuse its discretion in finding petitioner did not satisfy the procedural requirements for his motion in part because petitioner failed to submit a completed application for relief" ]

[ "recognizing that in this circuit a plaintiff may plead a theory of aiding and abetting liability under the ats", "holding that plaintiff failed to state a claim for conspiracy pursuant to 1985 for failure to allege a meeting of the minds", "recognizing aiding and abetting conversion", "holding the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the defendants failure to promote him was discriminatory where the plaintiff failed to that show he was qualified for the relevant position", "recognizing that the failure to investigate could constitute aid and abetting liability but finding this plaintiff failed to allege that he ever brought the discriminatory conduct to his superiors" ]

[ "holding that the portion of a district courts order that included a specific place of imprisonment was only a nonbinding recommendation to the bop and therefore not appealable", "holding that district courts adoption of the magistrate judges report and recommendation one day after issuance did not constitute reversible error where district court conducted a meaningful review of the report and recommendation", "holding that district courts nonbinding recommendations to the bop are not appealable", "holding that a district courts recommendation that the bop not credit the defendant for his time in state custody was not appealable because the district courts recommendation was not binding on the bop", "holding that the court will review the report and recommendation for clear error" ]

[ "holding that equitable tolling is available when a movant untimely files because of extraordinary circumstances that are both beyond his control and unavoidable even with diligence", "holding that 2244d is subject to equitable tolling if ae petitioner demonstrates 1 that he has been pursuing his rights diligently and 2 that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filling quoting pace v diguglielmo 544 us 408 418 125 sct 1807 161 led2d 669 2005", "holding that extraordinary circumstances did not include the mere neglect of the professional who was in a position to file a timely application", "holding in a habeas case that tolling is available when an inmate diligently pursues his claims and demonstrates that the failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control", "holding that ejquitable tolling is appropriate when a movant untimely files because of extraordinary circumstances that are both beyond his control and unavoidable even with diligence" ]

[ "recognizing that refinement of rule governing confidential court records was a necessary step in providing the public electronic access to court records", "recognizing medical records contain the same protected confidential information as a physicians direct testimony about the communications", "holding records did not qualify as exempt confidential commercial information under exemption 4 because the information was not actually confidential", "holding that plaintiff could state a claim for conversion of confidential information", "holding that county could redact from public records any information made confidential by statute with any redaction subject to review by the chancellor" ]

[ "recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard", "holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable", "recognizing that this court and the united states supreme court have embraced the notion that so long as the sentence imposed is within the maximum limit set by the legislature an appellate court is without power to review the sentence", "holding that an appellate court has no jurisdiction to review a sentence imposed by the trial court that is within the limits prescribed by statute which is not the result of oppression prejudice or corrupt motive", "holding statutory maximum for prior conviction is the potential maximum sentence defined by the applicable state criminal statute not the maximum sentence which could have been imposed against the particular defendant according to the states sentencing guidelines" ]

[ "holding that even when a defendant moves under rule 50 at the close of plaintiffs evidence and autocentro did not even do that if a defendant wishes to renew a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the posttrial stage with a view to having denial of that motion considered by the court of appeals the defendant is required to have moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence", "holding that argument was not preserved where defendant did not file a pretrial motion to suppress and did not object or make a motion to exclude the evidence until his motion to dismiss at the close of all of the evidence", "holding that a statute of limitations defense first raised in a motion to dismiss at the close of the plaintiffs evidence was untimely", "holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion", "holding that a litigants summary judgment motion does not satisfy the requirement for a motion for jmol at the close of the evidence" ]

[ "holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action", "holding that an injured party in an underlying tort action was not a necessary party in an action by an insurer for declaratory judgment of nonliability where the injured person had not obtained judgment against the insured", "holding that movant converted his motion for judicial review into an action seeking declaratory judgment by requesting rulings on underlying rights of the parties", "holding that a motion for a summary judgment is an appropriate means of seeking an adjudication on the merits", "holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment" ]

[ "holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not cognizable on direct appeal because it was not presented under the postconviction procedures set forth in rules2915 or 24035 which allow for the development of a full and complete record", "holding that defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest was not cognizable on direct appeal", "holding that to the extent defendants claim is one of ineffective assistance of counsel it is not cognizable on direct appeal and rule 2915 is the exclusive procedure by which a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be advanced", "holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be raised on direct appeal when the facts supporting the claim are presented on the face of the record", "holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record" ]

[ "holding that although the parking citation that the plaintiff received did not indicate where and how to contest the allegation the plaintiff was not deprived of procedural due process because he received a summons to appear in court via first class mail before he was deprived of any liberty interest", "holding plaintiffs are not deprived of a liberty interest because they cannot have the best job in their field", "holding that a prisoners loss of privileges for thirty days was not a property right that would constitute a violation of his constitutionally protected liberty interest", "holding that a prisoner has no constitutionallybased liberty interest in a particular prison classification because an inmate is not entitled to a particular degree of liberty in prison", "holding that a prison inmate was deprived of liberty and property because he was reclassified thereby losing certain privileges" ]

[ "holding that claim preclusion did not bar fire insurer from bringing a second action against its coplaintiff in first action", "holding claim preclusion did not foreclose plaintiffs second action even though it arose out of the same lease agreement as that of a prior action", "holding that a negligence claim against an insured and a bad faith claim against the insurer are not separate as the first must be proved to prevail on the second", "holding that entire controversy doctrine did not bar second lawsuit against defendant who was not party to first lawsuit in another state", "holding res judicata precluded landlord from bringing second action for damages of unpaid future rents after a final judgment determined tenants damages arising out of the breach of lease in landlords first action" ]

[ "holding that the repair or replace limitation of liability capped the insurers liability at the amount necessary to return the car to substantially the same condition as before the loss and did not include liability for loss due to stigma on resale", "holding that joint and several liability for entire actual loss could have been imposed on each fraud defendant as condition of probation", "holding that limitation of liability clause was unambiguous", "holding car lessee specifically contracted with car lessor for liability for any and all loss or damage to rental car thus barring recovery from insurer under exclusion for liability assumed by contract", "holding that if the insurer has any liability at all to the owner for a building damaged by a covered peril and deemed a total loss that liability is for the face amount of the policy citation omitted emphasis in original" ]

[ "holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction", "holding that deficient jurisdictional facts insufficient number of valid signatures in petition will not confer subjectmatter jurisdiction for court to act", "holding that a reviewable final order is necessary for subjectmatter jurisdiction", "holding that a district court had jurisdiction to impose rule 11 sanctions regardless of the existence of subjectmatter jurisdiction", "holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction and subjectmatter jurisdiction is essential to courts authority to hear case" ]

[ "holding that the deadmans statute should not be extended by judicial construction to cases not clearly within its terms", "recognizing that denying outofeell exercise for extended periods may constitute cruel and unusual punishment", "holding that it may not", "holding that the statutes 30 day provision is mandatory and may not be extended and dicta that it may not be extended by release from incarceration", "holding that statutory habeas jurisdiction extended to guantanamo" ]

[ "holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population", "holding a prisoner has no constitutional right to a job in prison", "holding that a prisoner has no constitutionallybased liberty interest in a particular prison classification because an inmate is not entitled to a particular degree of liberty in prison", "holding that an inmate has no right to any particular prison job but prison officials cannot discriminate against him on the basis of his race in work assignments", "holding that an inmate has a first amendment right to file grievances against prison officials" ]

[ "holding that where a qualified drug dog alerts to the presence of contraband in a vehicle officers have probable cause to search the vehicle", "holding automobile exeeption did not apply to warrantless search of vehicle where vehicle was not readily mobile because the vehicle was legally parked in parking lot occupants of vehicle were seated on a bench in the playground near the parking lot police officers surrounded the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was handcuffed for safety purposes", "holding that officers had probable cause to arrest driver and two passengers where cocaine and contraband were found in glove compartment and backseat armrest of vehicle and none of the men offered any information regarding the ownership of the drugs and contraband on the ground that the drugs and contraband could have been in the possession of any one of the three vehicle occupants or all three of them jointly", "holding that the court of appeals properly concluded that the odor of marijuana emanating from defendants vehicle constituted probable cause to search the vehicle", "holding that the smell of marijuana gave the police probable cause to search the vehicle" ]

[ "holding that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel could not be resolved on the facts appearing in the record and that under such circumstances the defendants remedy is to file a petition for habeas corpus", "holding the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a habeas petition challenging a 1231a5 reinstatement proceeding explaining the appropriate court of appeals is the sole and exclusive means to review a 1231a5 order reinstating a prior removal order", "holding that a habeas petition in the court of appeals is the exclusive remedy for challenging the effectiveness of appellate counsel", "holding that a habeas petition filed more than 30 days after the effective date of the real id act cannot be transferred to the court of appeals as a petition for review for lack of jurisdiction", "holding habeas petition challenging denial of custody credits is not related to the conditions of confinement and was properly brought in the district of conviction" ]

[ "holding that a notice of deficiency was invalid where it was the second notice mailed for that year and the taxpayer timely petitioned the court as to the first notice", "holding that owners notice substantially complied with federal requirements because the owner intended to demolish the housing units and noted that ajlthough the notice did not follow the statutory language it would have been misleading had it strictly followed the statute", "holding that plaintiff complied with plain language of the notice requirement when notice was mailed within statutory period although it was not received until after", "holding that due process is satisfied where notice is mailed to the wrong address if the appellant received actual notice", "recognizing that the applicant received notice from the plea form even though such notice was not required" ]

[ "holding that the erroneous admission of dna evidence is never harmless", "recognizing that in prior decisions the court had used the term inconclusive to mean that dna evidence did not exclude an individual but clarifying that in the future the term inconclusive would be used only when a dna sample does not contain enough dna to draw a conclusion dna is degraded or for other reasons a dna test yields no results or the examiner draws no conclusion", "holding recording of eyewitnesss inculpatory statement made in custodial interrogation testimonial in nature", "holding confession voluntary despite police misrepresentation of the thenunknown inculpatory nature of the applicable dna evidence", "holding that there was no ineffective assistance for failing to hire a dna expert because the defenses theory was that the defendants dna was planted so the dna evidence would not seem to be an issue" ]

[ "holding in action for breach of contract caused by wrongful foreclosure and sale of shares of stock plaintiff was entitled to recover the fair market value of the stock at the time of its sale", "holding that the validity of a contract for a commission for the sale of real estate is determined by the law of the state where the contract is made", "holding the real estate sale proceeds", "holding in the analogous context of choiceoflaw in relation to the sale of personal property that compensation for arranging the sale is assessed apart from underlying sale", "holding that the new jersey real estate licensing act is applicable to the sale of a company through a stock sale" ]

[ "holding governments encouragement through witness protection program of mothers decision to keep children from father constituted state action", "holding evidence legally and factually sufficient under sections d and e to terminate mothers parental rights based in part on evidence that mother placed children with father who lived transient lifestyle with children", "holding evidence supported termination of mothers parental rights where among other factors mother knowingly allowed abusive and sexually deviant father to have access to children", "holding evidence insufficient to terminate mothers parental rights under section c because mother made arrangements for adequate support of children evidence showed mother left children with father who maintained steady employment and adequately supported children mother knew that father would provide adequate support and mother left children pursuant to agreed divorce decree", "holding fathers pleadings representing himself to be the father of the children constituted a judicial admission" ]

[ "holding that the weight of a classification determination depends upon all those factors which give it power to persuade", "holding that the interests of two insurance companies were adverse under wis stat 102231a 19891990 relating to workers compensation when the respective liability of the two insurance companies depends on the determination of the date of injury", "holding that under the doctrine the district court should have stayed the diversityjurisdiction case pending the state workers compensation commissions final decision on whether the defendant properly paid certain workers compensation claims", "holding that wjhere the right to compensation depends upon which of two conflicting medical theories should be accepted the issue is peculiarly for commissions determination", "holding that deference to the guidelines depends on the thoroughness of the commissions analysis and the validity of its reasoning" ]

[ "recognizing that orders denying motions to reopen are treated as final orders of removal", "holding that the value of stolen blank money orders may be established by circumstantial evidence showing the market value for filled in money orders and the fact that the defendants had the necessary equipment to fill in the money orders and to make the completed orders appear valid", "holding that orders remanding an action to a federal agency are generally not considered final appealable orders", "holding the state may appeal orders of dismissal that have the same effect as orders quashing an information", "holding that remand orders are also appealable orders under 28 usc 1291" ]

[ "holding that section 4149 did not apply to the plaintiffs state law claims of breach of duty to protect foster care children from harm and of negligent supervision negligent entrustment and negligent failure to warn", "holding that the wright amendment an air traffic regulation restricting air traffic from love field in the dallasforth worth area did not violate the right to travel because any impact on interstate travel even air travel to and from the dallasfort worth area is negligible", "holding that rule was not violated where officer stated he made a report but was unable to find it because there was no report to tender to counsel", "holding that an air traffic controllers failure to report weather conditions from another faa location to a planes pilot was not negligent", "holding that during investigatory stop police may transport seized property to another location" ]

[ "holding that spouse could not claim exemption in property that was only property of other spouses estate", "holding that because property was no longer property of the estate the court could not order turnover", "holding that the mortgaging or conveying of exempt property to a creditor is not against the public policy of the state of michigan and that that the bankrupt had the power to convey to a creditor his existing exemptions resulting in the exempt property not being property of the debtor or the debtors bankruptcy estate", "holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate", "recognizing that exempt property ceases to be property of the estate" ]

[ "holding that the defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in an apartment bmldings common entrance", "holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building", "holding that captain has reasonable expectation of privacy in all areas of his ship", "holding that the defendant had no expectation of privacy in the hallway of an apartment building where the building door was unlocked and the hallway was easily accessible to the public", "holding that defendants lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in common area of residential building" ]

[ "holding that claims alleging negligent misrepresentation and failure to disclose seek economic damages not property damages within insureds policy", "holding that an architect whose negligent design and supervision of construction render a building unfit for use may be liable in tort to a commercial tenant who suffers economic loss as a result", "holding that in the context of construction litigation regarding the alleged negligence of design professionals a tort action for negligent misrepresentation alleging damages based purely on economic loss is not available to a party in privity of contract with a design professional", "holding economic loss rule did not bar negligent misrepresentation claim where parties had no contract", "holding that the economic loss doctrine barred a negligence claim without regard to whether the parties were in privity of contract" ]

[ "holding with little discussion that section 1981 applies to private racial discrimination", "holding that section 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in private employment against whites as well as nonwhites", "holding that title vii precludes a claim under section 1981 for racial discrimination against a federal employee", "holding unequivocally that 1981 protects against racial discrimination in private employment", "holding that conduct occurring after the formation of an employment contract could not be racial discrimination under 1981" ]

[ "holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering successive motions for summary judgment when each of fdics motions reflected material changes in the posture of this litigation and was grounded on meritorious contentions", "holding in part that the presumption of public access attaches to pretrialnondiscovery motions whether preliminary or dispositive and the materials briefs and documents filed with the court in support of or in opposition to such motions but not to pretrial discovery motions", "holding that a declaration signed under penalty of perjury and verifying the allegations set forth in the complaint were true and correct was competent summary judgment evidence", "holding that where the plaintiff is pro se the court must consider as evidence in his opposition to summary judgment all of plaintiffs contentions offered in motions and pleadings where such contentions are based on personal knowledge and set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence and where plaintiff attested under penalty of perjury that the contents of the motions or pleadings are true and correct", "holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed" ]

[ "recognizing that where representative plaintiff and other members of class share an interest in prevailing on similar legal claims particular differences in amount of damages claimed or of availability of certain defenses against class representative may not render his or her claims atypical", "holding that the cause of action under fela vests in the personal representative of the estate not in the beneficiaries", "holding that a copersonal representative could not unilaterally file a notice of appeal without concurrence of the other copersonal representative", "recognizing that authorized representative may be general or only for a certain claim", "holding that a a representative plaintiff acts as fiduciary for the others requiring the representative to act in the best interest of class" ]

[ "holding that a district courts findings under rule 52a are to be liberally construed in support of the district courts judgment", "recognizing a similar exception to its rule with respect to corporations", "holding rule similar to district courts order constitutionally inapplicable to nonprofit solicitation", "holding that the majority of courts to address this issue have decided that the 100mile rule is inapplicable to parties and party officers", "holding the carew rule to be inapplicable to claims of insurer bad faith" ]

[ "holding that in california one may be convicted of burglary even if he enters with consent", "holding a defendant may not be convicted of more than one count of dissemination of matter harmful to minors based on one occurrence even if there was more than one victim", "holding that iowa burglary is not categorical burglary as the elements of iowa burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary", "holding that a california burglary conviction was burglary under a modifiedcategorical approach because velascomedina pled guilty where the indictment alleged unlawful entry", "holding that possession of burglary tools is an offense separate from burglary" ]

[ "holding that it is the appellants burden to present a record to overcome the presumption of correctness of the trial courts findings", "holding that it is the duty of the appellant to overcome the presumption of the correctness of the trial courts judgment by demonstrating some reversible error", "recognizing presumption and finding that it was overcome", "holding that the ambiguity in the testimony of the cited jurors who were challenged for cause was insufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness owed to the trial courts findings", "holding evidence insufficient to overcome presumption of correctness" ]

[ "holding that an individual is not qualified for a job if there is a genuine substantial risk that he could be injured or could injure others and the employer cannot modify the job to eliminate that risk", "holding that plaintiff who was injured in fall from table did not have actual knowledge of a known risk and he did not make the choice to chance the risk rather than avoid it where he and other employees had similarly stood or stomped on the lift table without incident for seven months", "holding that a plaintiff who did not show that he was paid at a lower rate than similarly situated employees could not survive summary judgment", "holding that where the debtor did not act but merely had knowledge of and benefit from the fraudulent transfer he was not considered to have performed it", "holding that the government must prove actual subjective knowledge and that a defendant may not be convicted on just what he should have known" ]

[ "holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling", "holding that equitable estoppel and equitable tolling cannot apply to extend the 120day noa filing period set forth in 38 usc 7266a", "holding that in light of irwin previous statements that equitable tolling is unavailable against 38 usc 7266 are overruled", "holding that issue of whether the 120day judicialappeal period prescribed by 38 usc 7266a for seeking judicial review of a board decision is subject to equitable tolling is a legal question", "holding that irwin overruled all prior ninth circuit cases that denied equitable tolling under statutes and regulations relating to federal employee discrimination suits including one which had denied tolling under 7703b2" ]

[ "recognizing that pension plan administrators have the ability to fashion their own plan formulas", "holding that employer may not orally modify a pension plan and citing 29 usc 1102a1 which provides that all plan terms must be in writing", "holding that plan participants in a defined benefit pension plan have no claim to the plans surplus assets", "holding that plan language giving plan administrator power to determine which employees are eligible to participate in the plan and providing all parties dealing with the plan an interpretation of plan provisions on request indicates deferential standard of review of trustee eligibility decisions", "holding that the defendant withheld pension benefits in breach of the plan" ]

[ "holding that the impact upon the victims is relevant to circumstances of the crime", "holding that commerce clause authorizes congress to punish any particular criminal action even without proof of a relation to interstate commerce when the activity is part of a class of activities determined by congress to affect interstate commerce", "holding that the commerce clause does not provide congress with authority to enact a federal civil remedy for victims of gendermotivat ed violence because the crime was noneconomic contained no jurisdictional element and the aggregate impact of such crime was based on an attenuated effect upon interstate commerce", "holding that commerce clause did not provide congress with authority to enact civil remedy provision of violence against women act inasmuch as provision was not regulation of activity that substantially affected interstate commerce", "holding the limitations to congresss commerce clause authority recognized in lopez have no effect on the establishment of the interstate commerce element of the hobbs act" ]

[ "holding juveniles do not have constitutional right to a jury trial but striking down statute that allowed juveniles to receive adult sentence without a jury trial three justices dissented reasoning juveniles should be entitled to a juiy trial under all cases because changes to juvenile justice code treated juveniles like criminals", "recognizing juveniles right to counsel in certain juvenile proceedings", "holding that juveniles are not entitled to jury trials", "holding that juveniles may waive constitutional rights", "holding juveniles do not have right to jury trial because it is a civil proceeding under states parens patriae authority four justices dissented" ]

[ "holding that appellant was entitled to a de novo review however he was not entitled to a de novo review of an argument never raised", "recognizing de novo standard of review", "holding 28 usc 636 did not require a hearing for de novo review of a magistrates findings", "holding that review of the construction of a sentencing statute is de novo", "holding that the error caused by the magistrate judges unauthorized postjudgment order was cured by the district courts later de novo review of the magistrates findings and conclusions" ]

[ "holding that private security guards unsolicited call to police did not establish agency", "holding that erisa does not preempt professional malpractice claims", "holding that the safety act and fmvss 208 did not expressly or impliedly preempt a tort claim based on the manufacturers failure to install lap belts", "holding that the safety act and fmvss 108 did not impliedly preempt commonlaw conspicuity tort based on inadequate lighting and reflectors on truck trailer", "holding that the coast guards decision not to regulate propeller guards did not impliedly preempt petitioners tort claims" ]

[ "recognizing that generally services that benefit debtor are services that facilitate completion of a case", "holding some evidence existed that physician incurred fees because services had been performed on the physicians behalf", "holding that defendant must prove when the services were rendered to establish that the new value exception applies", "holding that an attorneys cause for services rendered over a period of time accrued when his services had been completely performed", "holding that an attorneys services were personal services rendered or labor done under the predecessor statute to section 38001" ]

[ "holding that a state courts affirmance of two consecutive 25yearstolife sentences for petty theft was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law", "holding that the ninth circuit improperly granted habeas relief because the state courts decision that it was not inherently prejudicial when court spectators wore buttons depicting the murder victim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law", "holding that the federal habeas courts task is to determine if the state courts decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court of the united states", "holding that our courts are bound by the united states supreme courts interpretation of the federal constitution", "holding that state courts affirmance of two consecutive 25yearstolife sentences for petty theft was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law" ]

[ "holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable", "holding that the denial of a motion to remand is interlocutory and not immediately appealable", "holding an order allowing a motion under rule 60b is not immediately appealable because it is interlocutory and does not affect a substantial right", "holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable", "holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable" ]

[ "recognizing that cue may be based on a showing that there was no evidence before the adjudicator that could have supported a denial of the claim on the merits that is that all of the evidence militated in support of the claim", "holding that because the carrier contested the compensability of the claim and took the position that there was no evidence that the accident arose out of and in the course and scope of hernandezs employment there was no conclusion on the merits", "holding that where the employment of the injured employees was the occasion of the injury the injuries arose out of employment", "holding that the burden rests upon the party seeking benefits to prove the injury sustained was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and the rule of liberal construction is not a substitute for the claimants burden of establishing his claim by a preponderance of the evidence", "holding that it is the claimants burden to show that the injury was the result of an accident that not only arose in the course of the employment but that it also grew out of or resulted from the employment" ]

[ "holding that a warrantless arrest does not violate the fourth amendment if at the time of the defendants arrest police had probable cause to believe that an offense has been is being or will be committed", "holding that a probable cause determination should consider the facts and circumstances known to the officer and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information", "holding that the courts determination of whether an officer had probable cause for an arrest is an independent and objective determination and an officers own subjective reason for the arrest is irrelevant", "holding that whether an arrest is supported by probable cause turns upon whether at the moment of the arrest the facts and circumstances within the arresting officials knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed or was committing an offense emphasis added", "holding that probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances known to the police officer and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the accused had committed or was committing an offense in situations where the arresting officer has not observed the operation of the vehicle such facts and circumstances would necessarily have to include a relationship between the time there was evidence to show the influence of intoxicants and the time of operation of the vehicle internal citations omitted" ]

[ "holding that court cannot order restitution under the mvra to persons who are not victims of the offenses for which the defendant was convicted", "holding that restitution is proper for victims losses that are directly caused by appellants conduct for which he was convicted", "holding that the amount of restitution is limited to the victims actual losses ", "holding that restitution is proper under 2259 only to the extent the defendants offense proximately caused a victims losses", "holding that under the restitution provision of the supervised release statute 18 usc 3583 restitution can be ordered only for losses caused by the specific conduct that is the basis for the offense of conviction" ]

[ "holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal based on a lack of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship", "holding that the real id act gave us jurisdiction to review a criminal aliens petition for review of an order of removal raising a question of law", "holding that the real id act does not restore jurisdiction over discretionary determinations", "holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the bias discretionary determinations concerning whether to grant cancellation of removal and that sjection 106 of the real id act does not override the jurisdictiondenying provision of 8 usc 1252a2b unless the petitioner raises a constitutional claim or question of law within the meaning of 8 usc 1252a2d", "holding that the real id act leaves this court deprived of jurisdiction to review discretionary and factual determinations" ]

[ "holding that a denial of an order to quash a subpoena not directed to a movant was a final order if the movant had no further opportunity to challenge the subpoena", "holding that taxpayer who is the target but not the recipient of an administrative subpoena pursuant to 26 usc 7602 may challenge the subpoena", "holding that denial of motion to vacate discovery order and to quash subpoena issued pursuant to 28 usc 1782 constitutes final appealable decision", "holding that a denial of a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena is not final and therefore not appealable", "holding that an order denying a motion to vacate a 1782 order and denying a motion to quash the subpoena was immediately appealable" ]

[ "holding that lack of consent may be established by adequate circumstantial evidence", "holding that lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent", "holding that such circumstantial evidence may be used to prove discrimination", "holding that conviction can be supported solely by circumstantial evidence", "holding that fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence" ]

[ "holding that either the district court or the court of appeals must issue a certificate of appealability on both the merits and the procedural bar before we can consider the merits of a claim that the district court held to be procedurally barred", "holding when a district court denies a habeas claim on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claim a coa may issue only when the petitioner shows that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether 1 the claim is a valid assertion of the denial of a constitutional right and 2 the district courts procedural ruling was correct", "holding that if the court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds the certificate of appealability must show that jurists of reason would find debatable two issues 1 that the district court was correct in its procedural ruling and 2 that the applicant has established a valid constitutional violation emphasis in original", "holding that when a district court dismisses a habeas petition on procedural grounds a petitioner is entitled to a coa only if he shows both that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether he had stated a valid constitutional claim and debatable whether the district courts procedural ruling was correct", "holding that when a district court dismisses a habeas petition on procedural grounds a petitioner is entitled to a coa only if he shows both that reasonable jurists would conclude it debatable whether he had stated a valid constitutional claim and debatable whether the district courts procedural ruling was correct" ]

[ "holding that evidence obtained from a search made subsequent to an illegal stop was admissible when before the search the police officer discovered that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for the defendant and the defendant was thereupon arrested pursuant to that warrant", "holding that suppression is not an appropriate remedy for officers failure to serve a warrant to the defendant before during or immediately after the search", "holding that violation of knockandannounce rule during execution of valid search warrant warranted suppression of evidence seized in search following violation", "holding that the fourth amendment remedy sought is suppression", "holding that the appropriate remedy for a public trial violation was a new suppression hearing not a new trial because the remedy should be appropriate to the violation" ]