context
stringlengths
5
855
endings
sequence
label
class label
5 classes
negligence placed the plaintiff....” Brown v. Philadelphia Coll, of Osteopathic Med., 449 Pa.Super. 667, 674 A.2d 1130, 1135-36 (1996). Russell’s actions were intentional, not negligent. The impact rule, which depends upon the negligence of a defendant, is therefore inapposite to this case. 7 . Because DiSalvio’s federal cause of action survives Russell's Motion to Dismiss, the Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over DiSalvio’s remaining state law claims. 9 . Unlike the School District Defendants, Russell has not argued that this tort is unavailable to plaintiffs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 10 . The Court similarly rejects Russell’s argument that DiSalvio cannot recover punitive damages from him under her § 1983 claim. See Coleman v. Kaye, 87 F.3d 1491, 1497 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). 11 . DiSalvio suggests that Magill should
[ "holding that punitive damages may be awarded for egregious violations of the lmrda", "holding that punitive damages may be imposed against employer for tortious conduct of employee", "holding that punitive damages may be awarded under 1983 when the defendants conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others", "holding that a supervisor with no personal involvement may be liable for the constitutional violation of a subordinate for culpable action or inaction in the training supervision or control of his subordinates acquiescence in the constitutional deprivation or reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others", "holding that since the complaint set out a deliberate indifference claim it follows logically that reckless or callous indifference has been noticed" ]
22
fundamental error analysis. 4 . During this hearing the court allowed Dr. Bail-on to testily telephonically from the hospital at which the patient was located. 5 . Alternatively, an appellate court could remand the matter to the superior court for evidentiary hearings and findings on the effectiveness of appointed counsel. See In re Condry's Estate, 117 Ariz. 566, 568, 574 P.2d 54, 56 (App.1977). In In re Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JS-4942, 142 Ariz. 240, 242, 689 P.2d 183, 185 (App. 1984), we reversed and remanded the matter to the juvenile court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the parent had received adequate notice of the hearings against him and whether the parent had received effective assistance of counsel. 142 Ariz. at , 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984) (<HOLDING>); State v. Carriger, 132 Ariz. 301, 304, 645
[ "holding that constitution requires an opportunity granted at a meaningful time and a meaningful manner for a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case", "holding that the due process clause is violated if the prosecution fails to disclose material evidence that is favorable to a criminal defendant", "holding if counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecutions case to meaningful adversarial testing the adversary process itself is presumptively unreliable", "holding that due process requires at a minimum an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner", "holding that the prosecutions suppression of evidence material to guilt or punishment violates due process regardless of the prosecutions good or bad faith" ]
22
law and fact. Allen v. Reynolds, 145 Idaho 807, 812, 186 P.3d 663, 668 (2008). Because these mixed questions are primarily questions of law, we exercise free review. Id.; Highlands, Inc. v. Hosac, 130 Idaho 67, 69, 936 P.2d 1309, 1311 (1997). Estoppel may not ordinarily be invoked against a government or public agency functioning in a sovereign or governmental capacity. Terrazas v. Blaine County ex rel. Bd. of Comm’rs, 147 Idaho 193, 200-01, 207 P.3d 169, 176-77 (2009); State ex rel. Williams v. Adams, 90 Idaho 195, 201, 409 P.2d 415, 419 (1965); Buell v. Idaho Dep’t of Transp., 151 Idaho 257, 265, 254 P.3d 1253, 1261, (Ct.App.2011). Cf. Kelso & Irwin, P.A. v. State Ins. Fund, 134 Idaho 130, 138, 997 P.2d 591, 599 (2000) n of Nez Perce County, 138 Idaho 82, 87, 57 P.3d 793, 798 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Willig v. State, Dep’t of Health & Welfare,
[ "holding that based upon the facts presented the arbitration provisions restricting or banning class actions are substantively unconscionable", "holding quasiestoppel did not apply when boards actions were not unconscionable without discussing whether the case presented extraordinary circumstance", "holding quasiestoppel did not apply when department did not take an inconsistent position without discussing whether the case presented extraordinary circumstances", "holding that arbitration provisions that preclude class actions are not unconscionable", "holding that an arbitration clause was not unconscionable because it did not unreasonably favor the defendants" ]
11
entered, that upon trial the prosecution would have the burden of proving each of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the plea is an admission of all those elements; (B) there is a factual basis for the plea. ...; (5) the defendant knows the minimum and maximum sentence, and if applicable, the mini-reum mandatory nature of the minimum sentence, that may be imposed for each offense to which a plea is entered. Utah R.Crim. P. 11(e)(2), (4)-(5). 3 . Because our decision that the trial court failed to strictly comply with rule 11 by accepting Mora's guilty plea without informing him that the State had the burden to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is dispositive, we need not address Mora's other arguments. See, e.g., State v. Heaton, 958 P.2d 911, 919 (Utah 1998) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Prior to the creation of the strict
[ "holding that where one argument is dispositive of the appeal we need not address the defendants other arguments", "holding that appellate courts need not address remaining issues when the resolution of a prior issue is dispositive", "holding that this court need not address the merits of an argument raised for the first time on appeal", "holding that where a party does not adequately brief an argument we need not address it on appeal", "holding an appellate court need not address remaining issues on appeal when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive" ]
00
essential element of an elevated breath alcohol level. Consequently, he contends that the judge’s ruling was essentially a determination that the exclusion of the BAT results left the State without sufficient proof to convict Defendant of the DWI charge, and that this constituted an adjudication of his innocence. Defendant also asserts that the judge’s oral comments that he had “reasonable doubt” and that he found Defendant “not guilty” further indicate that the judge deliberated on the merits of the case and acquitted Defendant of the DWI charge. Defendant does not, however, argue that the judge expressly ruled that Defendant was acquitted of the charges, nor would the record support such an assertion. See County of Los Alamos v. Tapia, 109 N.M. 736, 741, 790 P.2d 1017, 1022 (1990) (<HOLDING>). {20} The State concedes that jeopardy
[ "recognizing that when a cause of action is reduced to a judgment the cause of action is merged into the judgment and thereafter only an action on the judgment exists", "recognizing that an actual express judgment of acquittal precludes retrial regardless of any defects in the process leading to the judgment", "holding that defects in service of process must be raised in preliminary objections", "holding on summary judgment that an attorney who failed to timely file an answer leading to a default judgment was on notice that a malpractice claim might be filed against him", "recognizing that an appeal from a final judgment permits an attack against any nonfinal order or ruling leading up to it" ]
11
properly consider the Handbook as it was incorporated by reference in the complaint and attached as an exhibit to the first amended complaint. III. Analysis In the District of Columbia, all employment is at-will “unless a contrary contractual intent is clearly expressed!.]” Turner v. Fed. Express Corp., 539 F.Supp.2d 404, 410 (D.D.C.2008), citing Green v. Bowne of N.Y., LLC, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *1-2 (D.D.C. Sept. 5, 2002) (internal citations omitted). Even if the employer has provided its employees with an employee handbook, the handbook is not enforceable as an employment contract if it disclaims the establishment of contractual obligations and explicitly provides that employment may be terminated at-will. Futrell v. Dep’t of Labor Fed. Credit Union, 816 A.2d 793, 806 (D.C.2003) (<HOLDING>); Boulton v. Inst. of Int’l Educ., 808 A.2d
[ "recognizing that the legislature can create statutory exceptions to atwill employment", "holding that employee handbook did not give rise to implied contract where it stated that it was not a contract and that employment was terminable at will", "holding that language in employee handbook stating that it was not to be considered as creating terms and conditions of an employment contract and that the employment relationship was employment atwill was sufficiently explicit to preclude the creation of implied contractual obligations as a matter of law", "holding that a disclaimer setting forth policies for general guidance only which stated that it did not create a binding contract and that the employee could be terminated without notice and at will at any time for any reason unambiguously provided that employment was atwill", "holding that employee guidebook did not create an implied employment contract as it contained a clearlystated boldfaced disclaimer and statement that employment was atwill" ]
44
again, and KEB confirmed that it had, in fact, conveyed KLI’s notice to Morgan, but that Morgan had stated that it would not execute KLI’s demand to unwind. Kim called Morgan, and Morgan stated that it would not execute KLI’s demand because KEB did not want the transaction to be unwound. Morgan does not dispute these facts, and must concede, therefore, that it knew, by reason of both KLI’s written and oral notices, that KLI wanted its baht position unwound, and that it was Morgan’s decision not to comply with the demand. Clearly, Morgan had actual knowledge, and therefore is deemed to have notice that KLI made demand pursuant to the unwind provision, section 2(e) of the Morning Glory/KEB swap agreement. Leasing Serv. Corp. v. Diamond Timber, Inc., 559 F.Supp. 972, 978 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (<HOLDING>) (internal citation omitted). Morgan’s position
[ "holding that actual notice fulfills a notice requirement that an applicable federal regulation be conspicuously posted because actual notice is the best notice", "holding that constructive knowledge satisfies the reason to know standard", "holding that 1983 claim accrues when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of injury", "holding that a 1983 claim accrues when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of injury", "holding that notice occurs when party charged with having notice has actual knowledge or when from all the facts and circumstances known to him at the time in question he has reason to know that it exists" ]
44
between her ankle injury and her employment, neither the hearing officer nor the full Board ever reached the question of whether Milledge's infection and subsequent amputation were causally connected to her ankle injury. Therefore this cause is remanded to the Board for consideration of this issue. Conclusion We conclude that an injury resulting from an unexplained accident falls under the category of a neutral risk, one neither distinctly personal to the claimant nor distinctly associated with the employment. We conclude also that in the case of a neutral risk, the positional risk doctrine applies. As applied in this case, Milledge would not have been at the place where she injured her ankle injury but for the duties of her employment. Consequently, a presumpt 83, 786 (1970) (<HOLDING>); United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Maw, 510 N.W.2d
[ "recognizing that an injury arises out of the employment relationship if it can be traced to the nature of employment or the workplace environment", "holding that where the employment of the injured employees was the occasion of the injury the injuries arose out of employment", "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 where an employee is fatally injured in an unexplained assault there is a rebuttable presumption that the employees death arose out of the employment", "holding that in determining whether an accident arose out of employment the issue is whether the employees employment brought him in contact with the risk that in fact caused his injuries" ]
11
force to effectuate that arrest. Appellant’s claim, however, is not that the officers used excessive force after he stopped resisting or to stop his resistance; his claim is based solely on his assertions that he did not resist arrest, did nothing wrong, and was attacked by the Appellee officers for no reason. Thus, Appellant’s suit “squarely challenges the factual determination that underlies his conviction for resisting an officer,” and if he prevails, “he will have established that his criminal conviction lacks any basis.” Arnold v. Town of Slaughter, 100 Fed. Appx. 321, 324-25 (5th Cir.2004). This type of excessive force claim is, therefore, the type of claim that is barred by Heck in our circuit. Id.-, see also DeLeon v. City of Corpus Christi, 488 F.3d 649, 656-57 (5th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Third, Appellant argues that Heck does not
[ "holding that group pleading did not render complaint infirm where complaint provided fair notice of claims", "holding that the pretrial order did not adequately disclose a theory because it did not give notice of that theory", "holding that arrest made with probable cause and without excessive force does not give rise to iied claim", "holding that a change in the theory of recovery and one prior amendment is not sufficient to deny a motion to amend the complaint where no evidence of bad faith existed", "holding that heck barred appellants excessive force claim where his complaint maintained that he did not resist arrest and did nothing wrong and provided no alternative pleading or theory of recovery" ]
44
blood from 116 unrelated Korean individuals); Jeanne M. Hayes et al. & Maya Freund, “Arab Population Data on the PCR-Based loci: HLADQA1, LDLR, GYPA, HBGG, D758, Gc and D1S80,” 40 J. Forensic Sci. 888 (1995) (collecting ninety-four blood samples from unrelated Arabs); see also Pope, supra, 220 Ill.Dec. at 312, 672 N.E.2d at 1324 (finding that “[b]ecause the PCR polymarker systems are two allele or three allele, the FBI may rely on a smaller database. Thus, the PCR Caucasian database contains only 145 individuals”). Second, the trial court found that the underlying databases were reliable. In light of that finding, questions regarding the size of a database go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. See People v. Adams, 195 Mich.App. 267, 489 N.W.2d 192, 198 (1992) (<HOLDING>), modified in part on other grounds, 441 Mich.
[ "holding that once an expert has passed rule 702s threshold of admissibility lingering questions or controversy concerning the quality of the experts conclusions go to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility", "holding that allegations of tampering went to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility", "holding statistical conclusions admissible and questions regarding the size of a tests database goes to the weight not admissibility of the evidence", "holding that in face of expert testimony that database was valid questions concerning size of database and statistical conclusions drawn from it went to weight not admissibility of evidence", "holding that questions regarding size of fbis population databases was matter of weight once principle that frequency calculations could be made from an adequate database was determined to be generally accepted" ]
33
Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5 — 8 — 1(a)(1) (West 1996)), a defendant convicted of murder shall be sentenced to a term no less than 20 years and no more than 60 years. In this case, defendant received a sentence 10 years above the minimum. Clearly, such a term is within the statutory guidelines and thus, it cannot be said such a term was excessive or unjust. Nor can it be said such a sentence was unfairly disparate when it is considered that the codefendant in this case' pled guilty from the outset of this proceeding. Dispositional concessions are properly granted to defendants who plead guilty since the public interest in the effective administration of criminal justice is served. Caballero, 179 Ill. 2d at 218; see People v. Milton, 182 Ill. App. 3d 1082, 1094-95, 538 N.E.2d 1227 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we find defendant’s sentence is
[ "holding that where the defendant pleaded guilty subsequently denied his guilt and attempted to withdraw his plea and then attempted to minimize the significance of his statements at sentencing by averring that he accepted responsibility for the amount that me and the government have agreed to and offering a statement accepting responsibility were insufficient to demonstrate acceptance of responsibility", "holding that a defendant who is allowed to withdraw his plea must either withdraw his plea to all charges or to none when his plea to all charges was part of an agreement with the state", "holding that a defendant who has successfully challenged his plea in one ease should be allowed to withdraw his plea in a second case when both cases were part of one negotiated settlement of his charges", "holding it is proper for a trial court to grant leniency in sentencing a defendant who by his plea ensured prompt and certain application of correctional measures to him acknowledged his guilt and showed a willingness to assume responsibility for his conduct", "holding that although defendant is not entitled to appeal from his guilty plea as a matter of right his arguments challenging the factual basis for his guilty plea are reviewable pursuant to a petition for writ of certiorari" ]
33
789, 794 (Tex.2002) (personal jurisdiction). A relator who demonstrates that the order or judgment challenged is void need not demonstrate that remedy by appeal is inadequate. In re S.W. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex.2000) (citing In re Dickason, 987 S.W.2d 570, 571 (Tex.1998)). A void judgment results when the trial court had (1) no jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter, (2) no jurisdiction to render the judgment, or (3) no capacity to “act as a court.” State ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex.1995). Errors that render a judgment merely voidable, as opposed to void, may be corrected through the customary appellate process or other proceedings. See id; see also Decker v. Lindsay, 824 S.W.2d 247, 249 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>). It is well-settled that an order signed after
[ "holding that void order must exceed courts authority to act and not be merely erroneous", "recognizing that acts made in violation of statutory authority are void", "holding void judgment must be vacated", "recognizing collateral attack on void order", "recognizing that a state courts determination is not an unreasonable application of law merely because it is erroneous" ]
00
incentive for Liberty to terminate coverage or deny the claim. Under such facts, “the potential for self-interested decision-making is evident.” Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland v. Emerson Elec. Co., 202 F.3d 839, 846 n. 4 (6th Cir.2000). “The ‘possible conflict of interest’ inherent in this situation ‘should be taken into account as a factor in determining whether [Liberty’s] decision was arbitrary and capricious.’.” Id. (quoting Davis v. Kentucky Finance Cos. Retirement Plan, 887 F.2d 689, 694 (6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 905, 110 S.Ct. 1924, 109 L.Ed.2d 288 (1990)); see also Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 489 U.S. 101, 115, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989); Darland, 317 F.3d at 527-528; Whitaker v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Co., 121 Fed. Appx. 86, 87 (6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). While several courts have altered the
[ "holding that a heightened arbitrary and capricious standard of review applied to the decision to deny benefits under the erisa plan", "holding that a court is to factor an insurers dual role into its review under the arbitrary and capricious standard though the standard remains arbitrary and capri cious", "holding that under the arbitrary and capricious standard this court must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment", "holding that when applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review the courts role is to determine whether the plan administrators decision was completely unreasonable", "holding that the arbitrary and capricious standard performs its usual role of assuring factual support in a case involving a nhtsa decision to rescind a motor vehicle safety standard" ]
11
federal maritime law to the effect that the show-tag of profits and losses and the right to joint control are merely important indicators of a joint venture relationship rather than essential elements of such a relationship. Fulcher’s Point deals with maritime liens, not with employment status or tort liability under The Jones Act. 935 F.2d at 209. The emphasis of Fulcher was on nondilution of the credit of the vessel and the maintenance of this security for suppliers who are strangers to ownership of the vessel. See id. at 211, 213. Davidson involved the application of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901. 848 F.2d at 575. 11 .But cf. Evich v. Morris, 819 F.2d 256, 257-58 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 914, 108 S.Ct. 261, 98 L.Ed.2d 218 (1987) (<HOLDING>). 12 . As Taiyo points out, a substantial
[ "holding that the general rule of maritime law that parties bear their own costs coupled with the need for uniformity in federal maritime law precludes the application of state attorneys fee statutes such as texas civ prac remcode 38001 to maritime contract disputes", "holding punitive damages unavailable for survival claims under general maritime law", "holding that uniformity is as important in maritime survival actions as it is in maritime wrongful death actions", "holding that wrongful death actions asserted under admiralty jurisdiction lie under general maritime law for death caused by violation of maritime duties and are not limited to standards of liability created by state law", "holding that federal maritime law and not state law applies to all actions for wrongful death in navigable state waters" ]
22
of any lawful judgment, order or process of the court” is contemptible, regardless of whether the actions disrupt the proceedings. Id. § 78-32-1(5). ¶4 Utah Code section 78-32-3 does not require that the contemptible actions interrupt or block the proceedings in order to be punished summarily. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-32-3. Rather, it only requires that the “contempt is committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, or judge at chambers.” Id. Even though the juvenile court waited until the end of the certification hearing to issue the contempt order, Weis-kopfs contemptible actions took place in the court's presence; therefore, it properly exercised its summary contempt powers. See, e.g., Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1, 11, 72 S.Ct. 451, 96 L.Ed. 717 (1952) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 5 Weiskopf also asserts that his due
[ "holding that the district court did not err in continuing the trial without defendant when the trial had commenced in defendants presence he vigorously expressed his desire to be absent he was given ample opportunity to change his mind despite the disturbance he had created he had competent counsel and he knew of his right to be present", "holding that defendant waived his right to selfrepresentation where he told the trial judge before trial that he did not want to represent himself and the public defender acted as counsel for the remainder of trial without objection", "holding that if a judge believes the exigencies of the trial require that he defer judgment until its completion he may do so without extinguishing his summary contempt power", "holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment", "holding that the commissioner has an obligation to refuse to grant a patent if he believes that doing so would be contrary to law" ]
22
authority to assess credibility. 24 Magistrates may make ered-ibility determinations in preliminary hearings, but the extent of those determinations is limited. In Talbot, we recognized that assessing "'the credibility of the witnesses [in a preliminary hearing] is an important element in the determination of probable cause'" and that preventing magistrates from making credibility determinations "would undermine the fundamental purpose served by the preliminary examination." 972 P.2d at 438 (quoting Anderson, 612 P.2d at 783-84, 786). Indeed, that the probable cause standard demands "reasonable belief" rather than merely "belief" strongly suggests that magistrates must, to a certain extent, assess the credibility of the evidence presented. See Clark, 2001 UT 9, ¶ 16, 20 P.3d 300 (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, we have also noted that "the
[ "holding that the prosecution must present sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that defendant committed a crime emphasis added", "holding that a habeas court reviewing the sufficiency of evidence underlying a criminal conviction must determine whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt emphasis added", "holding that plaintiff must present such evidence", "holding that the investigators belief that a crime had been committed does not permit or excuse deliberate fabrication of evidence", "holding that a party must at least have a subjective belief that litigation was a real possibility and that belief must have been objectively reasonable" ]
00
constitutional responsibility for their actions.” S.F. Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522, 544, 107 S.Ct. 2971, 97 L.Ed.2d 427 (1987). Any increase or decrease in taxing or spending necessarily affects private behavior. To hold that such an effect necessarily creates a “close nexus” would be to hold that nearly any action in an industry that receives government funding constitutes state action, in contravention of Supreme Court authority. As the Court stated in Blum, “[m]ere approval of or acquiescence in the initiatives of a private party is not sufficient to justify holding the state responsible for those initiatives under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Blum, 457 U.S. at 1005, 102 S.Ct. 2777; see also S.F. Arts, 483 U.S. at 546, 107 S.Ct. 2971 (<HOLDING>). That is precisely what happened here:
[ "holding that establishing the existence of an understanding among private parties and state actors for 1983 conspiracy purposes is really nothing more than another way to show state action by alleging a private partys connection to a state actor", "holding that foster parents are not state actors", "holding that a private actors conduct was not state action just because the government failed to supervise that partys conduct", "holding private actors are not acting under the color of state law for the purposes of section 1983 liability", "holding that massachusetts statute did not create a sufficiently close nexus between private hospital and the state to warrant labeling private actors state actors" ]
22
of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 248 (Iowa 2006); Imagnu v. Wodajo, 85 Md. App. 208, 582 A.2d 590 (1990); Webster v. Webster, 271 Neb. 788, 716 N.W.2d 47, 52 (2006); Stiel v. Stiel, 348 S.W.3d 879, 885-86 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011); Brockway v. Brockway, 921 P.2d 1104 (Wyo. 1996). 22 Hartley v. Hartley, 205 P.3d 342, 352 (Alaska 2009) (“We have consistently recognized that the superior court is in the best position to assess each party’s circumstances and to determine what division of property is most equitable.”); In re Marriage of Brown, 15 Cal. 3d 838, 126 Cal. Rptr. 633, 544 P.2d 561, 567 (1976); In re Marriage of Hunt, 909 P.2d 525, 538 (Colo. 1995) (“The method adopted may vary with the facts in each case.” (citations omitted)); Bender v. Bender, 258 Conn. 733, 785 A.2d 197, 216 (2001) (<HOLDING>); Forrester v. Forrester, 953 A.2d 175, 186
[ "holding that the method used to distribute retirement benefits was properly a matter within the trial courts discretion", "recognizing offset method", "holding it is within the trial courts discretion to choose on a casebycase basis the method although expressly rejecting the reserved jurisdiction method", "recognizing this method of submission", "recognizing this method" ]
22
the alleged negligence of an independent contractor. More specifically, GET argues that tour operators are not liable for the negligence of providers of transportation services. Corby, 1990 WL 488464 at 3. GET also cites numerous out-of-state cases which hold that tour operators are not liable for the negligence of third party suppliers of Grand European Inbound’s safety because GET made an inquiry into the reliability of GEI, and used it without incident for more that 10 years before Ramage’s alleged accident. B. Plaintiffs Opposition First, Ramage claims that waiver of defendant GET’s liability is contrary to public policy, and thus unenforceable and void. See Cal.Civ.Code § 1790.1. Ramage contends that he was not put on sufficient n Cal.App.3d 237, 240, 142 Cal.Rptr. 570 (1967) (<HOLDING>). Ramage contends GET expressly and impliedly
[ "holding that a summary judgment motion must stand or fall on the grounds expressly presented in the motion", "holding that the courts denial of either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is not reviewable ", "holding that if there is any issue of fact which remains upon a motion for summary judgment the motion must be denied", "holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion", "holding the denial of a motion for summary judgment on an issue which is later submitted to the jury is not reviewable" ]
22
motion. 9 . Plaintiffs also argue that because this statement was incorporated by reference into the registration statements filed with the SEC for the Hotels.com, LendingTree, and Expedia mergers, those registration statements were rendered materially false and misleading as well. See infra at I.D. 10 . See supra Background at II.A.2. 11 . The Derivative Complaint describes Dil-ler’s relationship with defendants Khosrowsh-ahi, Bennett, and Malone (DC ¶ 123(f)), but none of these individuals was serving on the Board at the time plaintiffs filed their Complaint, and thus Diller’s relationships to them are not relevant to the issue of demand futility. (See id. ¶ 114); See Cal. Pub. Employees’ Ret. Sys. v. Coulter, 2002 Del. Ch. LEXIS 144, 2002 WL 31888343, at *5 (Del. Ch. Dec. 18, 2002) (<HOLDING>); see also Haseotes v. Bentas, C.A. No. 19155
[ "holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school board president constituted the decision of the board", "recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys and board members of the texas medical board", "holding that where approval of the board of directors was not formally requested a demand would have been futile for it could hardly be expected that if approval of the board of directors were sought defendant who controlled 50 of the board would have authorized the action against himself", "holding that the board as constituted on the date that the original complaint was filed is the board for purposes of evaluating whether demand is required or excused", "holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings" ]
33
to a child. Similarly, the jury’s acquittal on the manslaughter charge has no bearing on the second prosecution for injury to a child. Manslaughter is not the same as injury to a child for the same reasons that criminally negligent homicide is not the same as injury to a child. Application of the Blockburger principles to the charge of capital murder leads us to a slightly different result. Capital murder does include an element not required to prove injury to a child, namely the death of the victim. Therefore, capital murder is not subsumed within the offense of injury to a child. Cf. Wright v. State, 866 S.W.2d 747, 750 (Tex. App.-Eastland 1993, pet. refd) (citing United States v. Webb, 796 F.2d 60 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1038, 107 S.Ct. 894, 93 L.Ed.2d 846 (1987)) (<HOLDING>). The opposite is true also: injury to a child
[ "holding noncapital murder and injury to a child not same offenses for doublejeopardy purposes noting murder requires proof of death while injury to a child does not", "holding that where both firstdegree and felony murder were possible bases for a murder conviction a jury instruction that suggested the jury could rely on felony murder as the predicate offense for a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder was improper because under arizona law a conviction for conspiracy to commit firstdegree murder requires a specific intent to kill", "holding an unborn child is a child for purposes of prosecuting chemical endangerment of a child", "holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child", "holding a fetus is not a child person or individual for purposes of criminal prosecution under the reckless injury to a child statute" ]
00
persons for damages that result because of an injury to the corporation unless a special injury exists in the form of either: (1) a special duty, such as a contractual duty, between the defendant and the shareholder; or (2) an injury separate and distinct from that suffered by other shareholders. Healthsource, Inc., 2005-NMCA-097, ¶ 25, 138 N.M. 70, 116 P.3d 861; Marchman, 120 N.M. at 81-82, 898 P.2d at 716-17. {14} Defendants argue that Marchman and Healthsource, Inc. are controlling and that Plaintiff lacks standing because neither exception applies. Furthermore, Defendants argue that, to the extent Plaintiff alleges mismanagement or negligence, these claims may also be asserted only derivatively. See Schwartzman v. Schwartzman Packing Co., 99 N.M. 436, 441, 659 P.2d 888, 893 (1983) (<HOLDING>). The district court agreed, and dismissed
[ "recognizing privilege for corporate officers directors and shareholders to influence the actions of their corporation", "holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation", "holding that the trust fund and denuding theories of recovery were considered to belong to the debtor corporation because each action was created for the benefit of the corporation ie to vindicate injury to the corporation caused by improper actions by control persons", "holding that a corporate plaintiffs claims must be dismissed on the ground of failure of any attorney to appear for the corporation", "holding that claims against corporate officers for mismanagement belong to the corporation" ]
44
permission to be absent, she unilaterally proclaimed her intention to take a vacation the week of August 20, 1979. The claimant never received either the explicit or implicit permission of her employer to be absent. The floor lady said nothing a reasonable person could construe as permission to be absent. Id. 429 A.2d at 1219 (emphasis added). The Fritzo court relied on the fact that “the claimant never requested the employer’s permission to be absent from work” and therefore wilfully disregarded the employer’s interest in upholding the unemployment compensation board’s denial of unemployment insurance benefits due to wilful misconduct related to work. Id. at 1217; see also Grispino v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 81 Pa.Cmwlth. 51, 472 A.2d 288 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Dulgerian v. Commonwealth Unemployment
[ "holding that an isolated incident in which an employee used profanity in a telephone conversation with her supervisor did not constitute misconduct sufficient to cut off unemployment benefits", "holding that isolated incident in which claimant raised voice at his supervisor in private office but in front of two other employees and possibly used profanity did not constitute misconduct sufficient to deny unemployment compensation benefits", "holding that leaving work early without permission after having been previously warned constitutes misconduct", "holding that single incident of leaving work early without receiving permission from supervisor to address problem of impending termination of electrical service to his home by employee on probation due to poor attendance record constituted willful misconduct related to work justifying denial of unemployment insurance benefits", "holding that single incident of failing to return to work after doctors visit without permission due to employees professed anxiety after being informed she may have skin cancer constituted willful misconduct related to work justifying denial of unemployment insurance benefits" ]
33
activities are sufficient, mere conclusory allegations of fraud are insufficient”). See also Walling v. Beverly Enters., 476 F.2d 393, 397 (9th Cir.1973) (concluding that allegations stating the time, place, and nature of allegedly fraudulent activities meet Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement). Rule 9(b) “does not require nor make legitimate the pleading of detailed evidentiary matter,” however. All that is necessary is “identification of the circumstances constituting fraud so that the defendant can prepare an adequate answer from the allegations.” Walling, 476 F.2d at 397 (alleging in conclusory fashion that defendant’s conduct was fraudulent was not sufficient under Rule 9(b)). See also Miscellaneous Serv. Workers Local #427 v. Philco-Ford Corp., 661 F.2d 776, 782 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). 3. Whether Plaintiffs Lack Standing Under
[ "holding that rule does not apply where defendant made false representations", "holding that specific details about time place and substance of the fraud satisfy rule 9b", "holding that pleading fraud with particularity in this circuit requires time place and contents of the false representations as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what that person obtained thereby ", "holding that rule 9b requires a pleader to set forth the time place and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentation", "holding that the offense requires that the return be false as to a material matter" ]
33
938, 949-50 (10th Cir.2008). Even assuming without deciding we were free to revisit the governing standard of review, we question whether de novo review would be appropriate or make any difference in this case. Even when the constitutional fact doctrine applies, credibility determinations remain subject to clear error review, see Harte-Hanks Commc'ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 688, 109 S.Ct. 2678, 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989), and a sincerity finding is in the end "almost exclusively a credibility assessment,” Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1219 (10th Cir.2007). In those few instances where the Supreme Court has mandated de novo review of facts involving a litigant’s state of mind, the inquiry has usually involved some purely legal question. See Bose, 466 U.S. at 511, 104 S.Ct. 1949 (<HOLDING>); Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 116-17, 106
[ "holding that on appeal an appellate court does not have the right to weigh the evidence and decide the issue on the basis of its weight the courts duty goes no further than to determine whether the record contains any evidence tending to support the finding", "holding that the court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff states a claim of a constitutional violation at all and then must determine whether the claimed right was clearly established before proceeding to the qualified immunity question", "holding that an appellate court is not required to search the appellate record with no guidance from the briefing party to determine if the record supports the partys argument", "holding appellate court must when evaluating actual malice in libel case independently determine whether the evidence in the record is of the convincing clarity required to strip the utterance of first amendment protection", "recognizing that appellate court is in same position as trial court to assess evidence when all of the proof is contained in the record by deposition" ]
33
suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses. We have held that “[a] jury’s award of damages will not be set aside unless the award is ‘entirely disproportionate to the injury sustained.’ ” Flanagan v. Aaron E. Henry Cmty. Health Servs. Ctr., 876 F.2d 1231, 1236 (5th Cir.1989) (quoting Caldarera v. E. Airlines, Inc., 705 F.2d 778, 784 (5th Cir.1983)). In Flanagan, we explained that “[a] certain amount of emotional distress may be assumed from the racially motivated treatment [the plaintiff] received from the defendants.” Id. There was sufficient evidence of the racially motivated mistreatment here and the jury heard testimony that this adversely affected Rhines. See Williams v. Trader Publ’g Co., 218 F.3d 481, 486 (5th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Salinas Construction’s challenge
[ "holding that damages in a fela action are limited strictly to the financial loss thus sustained overturning a jury award for the loss of society and companionship", "holding that plaintiffs own testimony that he was embarrassed and humiliated by defendants conduct was sufficient to support compensatory damages award", "holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss", "holding that loss of an arm includes loss of the hand", "holding that a title vii plaintiffs testimony that her employment discharge resulted in sleep loss smoking and weight loss was sufficient to support an award of 100000 in compensatory damages" ]
44
of Liability Provisions SBVS argues that Plaintiffs are not entitled to lost rent or diminution in value damages because both of the Agreements contain provisions barring the award of consequential damages. The Court concludes that the enforceability of these provisions turns on disputed facts and, therefore, that summary judgment on this issue is improper. Generally, provisions limiting liability in construction contracts are enforceable under California law so long as the parties negotiated and expressly agreed to the limitations. See Cal. Civ.Code § 2782.5. However, such a provision is unenforceable if it is unconscionable or otherwise contrary to public policy. Markborough California, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Riverside County, 227 Cal.App.3d 705, 715, 277 Cal.Rptr. 919 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Under § 1668 of the California Civil Code,
[ "holding that plaintiffs who had been served and received responses to interrogatories on personal jurisdiction had had such a fair opportunity", "holding that a plaintiff had no injury in fact and consequently no standing when it had no enforceable contract right against the defendant", "holding contract not unconscionable where parties were of equal bargaining power plaintiff had opportunity to have an attorney review the contract the contract was clear and easily read the plaintiff had been a party to similar contracts in the past and was under no financial pressure to sign the con tract", "holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish procedural unconscionability since he had a reasonable opportunity to consider the agreement and the arbitration clause was clearly set forth in the contract", "holding that limitation of liability clause in construction contract that is not unconscionable or in violation of public policy is valid so long as parties had a fair opportunity to accept reject or modify limitation and affirming summary judgment on basis that plaintiff had presented no evidence that it had had no such opportunity" ]
44
has fewer than twelve creditors and this Court finds that the evidence produced at Trial was sufficient to establish that the Proposed Debtor was generally not paying his debts as they became due. Therefore, the only issue for this Court to address is whether the Petitioning Creditor has standing to file the Involuntary Petition. To have standing, the Petitioning Creditor must be the holder of a bona fide claim against the Proposed Debtor. London v. Hunt, 977 F.2d 829, 832 (3d Cir.1992) (“The Bankruptcy Code clearly states that an involuntary proceeding can only be filed by creditors who hold claims that are not contingent as to liability or subject to a bona fide dispute”) (emphasis in original); B.D.W. Assocs., Inc. v. Busy Beaver Bldg. Ctrs., Inc., 865 F.2d 65, 66 (3d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); In re Tama Manufacturing Co., Inc., 436 B.R.
[ "holding that a bona fide purchaser may be considered in privity with its predecessor", "holding bona fide error defense barred claim for fdpca violation which arose from mistake of law", "recognizing that if a creditors claim is subject to a bona fide dispute that creditor lacks standing to file an involuntary petition", "holding that bona fide dispute over whether bank actually possessed property belonging to taxpayer is reasonable cause", "holding that unsatisfied execution creditor had rights in property superior to all but prior secured creditors and bona fide purchasers for value" ]
22
on an indefinite schedule is not acceptable. Alternatively, the plaintiffs assertion that she could work with her requested accommodations conflicts with her representation to the OPM that she could not work even with reasonable accommodations. Compare Pl.’s Opp’n at 22 with Def.’s Mot., Exs. 45-46. “[W]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position.” Galt v. Phoenix Indem. Co., 120 F.2d 723, 726 (D.C.Cir.1941). Prior agency determinations, such as the one made by the OPM in this case, are analogous to the “legal proceeding” described in Galt. See, e.g., Rissetto v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 343, 94 F.3d 597, 603 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Simon v. Safelite Glass Corp., 128 F.3d 68,
[ "holding that a social security disability determination is a legal proceeding", "holding that a proceeding under section 547 is a core proceeding", "holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding", "holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding", "holding that misleading testimony regarding the purpose of a proceeding did not warrant inquiry into the result of the proceeding" ]
33
“involves challenges to the length of term-of-years sentences given all the circumstances in a particular case.” Graham, 130 S.Ct. at Graham is limited to juveniles. See United States v. Banks, 679 F.3d 505, 507 (6th Cir.2012); Jones, 476 Fed.Appx. at 652; Moore, 643 F.3d at 457. Walker’s attempts to differentiate his case are unpersuasive. That Walker’s sentence may prove to be an “effective[ ] life sentence” does not create an Eighth Amendment violation. “[T]he Supreme Court has never held that a sentence to a specific term of years, even if it might turn out to be more than the reasonable life expectancy of the defendant, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.” United States v. Beverly, 369 F.3d 516, 537 (6th Cir.2004); see also Bunch v. Smith, 685 F.3d 546, 550 (6th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Walker’s categorical challenge
[ "holding that the eighth amendment forbids life without the possibility of parole for a juvenile who commits a nonhomicide offense", "holding that consecutive fixedterm sentences for juveniles who committed multiple nonhomicide offenses are not clearly unconstitutional under graham even when they amount to the practical equivalent of life without parole", "holding that multiple sentences for offenses under 18 usc 924c are appropriate when multiple separate acts of firearm use have occurred even if they are related to the same underlying offense", "holding that life without parole sentences for nonhomicide offenses violates the eighth amendment", "recognizing that njeither graham nor miller explicitly apply to the functional equivalent of life without parole ie de facto life sentences" ]
11
removal of the access can result in a taking under Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution, if the state’s use is for a purpose other than a road purpose. But, in Judge Armstrong’s view, any modification of a road for road purposes that denies a landowner’s access does not give rise to a compensable taking. In so concluding, Judge Armstrong discounts as “dictum” the Supreme Court rationale in Burk that an abutter’s right of access to a conventional Highway “can be divested only by condemnation of the easement appurtenant to the abutting property.” 200 Or at 231. Judge Armstrong explains that the court’s conclusion in Burk cannot be reconciled with the court’s analysis in more recent cases in the context of regulations that affect road access. See, e.g., Schrunk, 242 Or at 73 (<HOLDING>). If, Judge Armstrong’s concurrence reasons, a
[ "holding that inverse condemnation claim challenging as a regulatory taking the states placement of a guard rail that blocked former access was not ripe for adjudication where owners had failed to apply for permit for alternative approach and it therefore was not possible to assess whether a taking had occurred as a result of a deprivation of all reasonable access", "holding in an inverse condemnation case that the abutting landowners right of direct access was subservient to the city of portlands proper exercise of its governmental powers for purposes of public safety and convenience and that the elimination of access from the landowners property to the affected street did not constitute a taking", "holding ripe a claim for a pre1987 taking because prior to first english california law did not permit landowners to seek compensation for a regulatory taking through an action in inverse condemnation", "recognizing that the evidence establishes that direct access to landowners property was always from the stafford straightaway factually there was never any direct access from the stafford curve rather this portion of the roadway like davis street and the route 81 ramps was merely part of an adjacent road system providing a convenient flow of traffic in the direction of landowners property", "holding that regulatory restrictions on abutting landowners right of ingress and egress are not compensable when landowner has adequate alternative means to access property" ]
11
264; Vahila v. Hall (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 421, 430, 674 N.E.2d 1164; Civ.R. 56(E). {¶ 9} Under R.C. 3375.06, a board of library trustees “shall have the control and management of the county free public library, and in the exercise of such control and management shall be governed by sections 3375.33 to 3375.41, inclusive, of the Revised Code.” R.C. 3375.33 provides that “[t]he boards of library trustees * * * are bodies politic and corporate, and as such are capable of suing and being sued, contracting, acquiring, holding, possessing, and disposing of real and personal property, and of exercising such other powers and privileges as are conferred upon them by law.” See, generally, Blue Cross of Northeast Ohio v. Ratchford (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 256, 259-260, 18 O.O.3d 450, 416 N.E.2d 614 (<HOLDING>). {¶ 10} Former R.C. 3375.40(H) provided that a
[ "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 the secretary may only delegate the powers and duties of the office to a natural person not to an administration or entity other than a natural person", "holding that if the contract involves the exercise of the municipal corporations business or proprietary powers it is binding on successor bodies if at the time the contract was entered into it was fair and reasonable and necessary or advantageous to the municipality", "holding that utah const art vi 1 limits legislatures ability to delegate legislative powers or functions to others", "holding that a district court may review successive or abusive claims but only if petitioner establishes cause and prejudice" ]
00
4. When a litigant challenges the legality of a zoning law on the theories that the law violates equal protection or is arbitrary and capricious, for “a facial challenge, the remedy is the striking down of the regulation. In the case of an as applied challenge, the remedy is an injunction preventing the unconstitutional application of the regulation to the plaintiffs property and/or damages.... ” Eide v. Sarasota Cnty., 908 F.2d 716, 722 (11th Cir.1990) (citation omitted). This is so because, in a facial challenge, “the claimed constitutional violation inheres in the terms of the statute, not its application ... [t]he remedy is necessarily directed at the statute itself and must be injunctive and declaratory.” Ezell v. City of Chi., 651 F.3d 684, 698 (7th Cir.2011) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>). Thus, “a victory by the plaintiff in [facial
[ "recognizing that courts should exercise judicial restraint in a facial challenge", "holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea", "holding that damages are not available for a facial challenge to a gun control law", "holding that generally punitive damages are not available for a breach of contract", "holding that plaintiff could not request damages for a facial challenge to a zoning ordinance under the first amendment because the provision had not yet harmed the plaintiff" ]
22
person of the principal. 3 . Timmons argues that UBS'S Master Account Agreement should not have been included in the Record on Appeal because UBS failed to present it to the circuit court. We disagree. While the Master Account Agreement was not included with UBS'S pleadings, it was incorporated into the UBS contract by direct reference, and the UBS contract was included in UBS’S Motion to Compel Arbitration. In any event, the circuit court's order sets forth the pertinent language of the arbitration clause in the J.C. Bradford contract and includes a finding that Timmons signed a similar contract with UBS. Timmons did not appeal this finding, and as such, it is the law of the case. See Charleston Lumber Co., Inc. v. Miller Hous. Corp., 338 S.C. 171, 175, 525 S.E.2d 869, 871-72 (2000) (<HOLDING>). 4 . S.C.Code Ann. §§ 43-35-5 to -595
[ "holding that an unappealed order is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes", "holding that an unappealed contempt order by a bankruptcy court is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes", "holding that an exhaustion of appellate remedies is required to make a trial courts ruling the law of the case", "holding a trial judges unappealed procedural rulings become the law of the case", "holding that an unappealed ruling is the law of the case" ]
44
in part. As the Majority explains, the “implied bias [doctrine] remains available, in appropriate circumstances, to disqualify jurors whose connection with the litigation makes it highly unlikely that they can remain impartial adjudicators.” (Slip Op. at 13 (citing United States v. Calabrese, 942 F.2d 218 (3d Cir. 1991)).) In dicta in Calabrese, we cited with approval Justice O’Connor’s observation in Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 102 S. Ct. 940, 71 L. Ed. 2d 78 (1982), that a “juror [who] is an actual employee of the prosecuting agency” is one example of an “extreme situation^ that would justify a finding of implied bias.” Calabrese, 942 F.2d at 226 (quoting Smith, 455 U.S. at 222 (O’Connor, J., concurring)); accord United States v. Polichemi, 201 F.3d 858, 861-64 (7th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>). It is true, as the Majority says, that Juror
[ "holding that the failure to strike potentially biased juror was not iac where decision was based on trial strategy", "holding that where a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is grounded in the claim that counsel failed to strike a biased juror a defendant must show that the juror was actually biased against him", "holding that the attorney generals decision not to provide representation to an employee is reviewable by the appellate division not by the law division where the actions against the employee are pending", "holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when the trial judge questioned the juror extensively enough to satisfy itself that the juror was not biased emphasis added", "holding without citing to justice oconnors concurrence in smith that a juror who was a 15year secretarial employee in the civil division of the prosecuting agency was impliedly biased" ]
44
appeal docketed, No. 03-2415 (1st Cir. Oct. 17, 2003). 17 . See Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 311-12 & 319, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978) (noting that a "diverse student body ... is a constitutionally permissible goal for an institution of higher education” but striking down a two-track medical school admissions system that used "explicit racial classification[s]”) (opinion of Powell, J.); Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 123 S.Ct. 2411, 156 L.Ed.2d 257 (2003) (striking down as not narrowly tailored an undergraduate admissions system that automatically awarded twenty points in admissions scoring to members of under-represented ethnic and racial minority .groups); Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 334 & 328, 123 S.Ct. 2325, 156 L.Ed.2d 304 (2003) (<HOLDING>). 18 . Walsh has a Master’s Degree in
[ "holding that universities can consider race or ethnicity more flexibly as a plus factor in the context of individualized consideration of each and every applicant and that a diverse student body is a sufficiently compelling interest to justify such use of race", "holding that more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the race classification is required to make a prima facie race discrimination case", "recognizing that certain forms of race consciousness do not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination", "holding that the race of the prosecutor is irrelevant", "holding that a criminal defendant can bring a third party challenge to the peremptory striking of jurors based on race whether or not he is of the same race as the jurors who are struck" ]
00
111 .When it reversed the First Court of Appeals' judgment in part and remanded the plaintiffs SWDA claim for a new trial on the question of “arranger” status, the Texas Supreme Court in R.R. Street II declined to address whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the plaintiff proved the remaining elements of the defendant's liability as a matter of law. See 166 S.W.3d at 253, 255. The Texas Supreme Court gave no indication that it would reverse the Court of Appeals's findings on the remaining elements of SWDA liability. As a result, those undisturbed findings remain the Texas courts’ only pronouncement on these remaining elements and thus the best indicator of what the Texas Supreme Court would decide. See Transcon. Gas v. Transport. Ins. Co., 953 F.2d 985, 988 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Those findings — to the extent they are
[ "holding that a federal court must decide an issue regarding the interpretation of a state law according to its anticipation of how the highest state court would hold", "holding that when applying state law this court follows the decision of the highest state court or in the absence of such a decision and any indication that the highest court would rule differently the decisions of the states intermediate courts", "holding that when there is no ruling by the states highest court it is the duty of the federal court to determine as best it can what the highest court of the state would decide", "holding that a federal court in absence of a state supreme court pronouncement on a subject of state substantive law must determine as best it can what the highest court of the state would decide", "holding that when applying state law a federal court is bound to follow the highest court in the state" ]
33
the trustee’s stead.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Thus, the Court made clear that it was rejecting only an “independent right to use § 506(c).” Id. Accordingly, although Hartford Underwriters provides guidance for our analysis, it does not control the question of whether the Bankruptcy Code allows courts to grant derivative standing to creditors to bring avoidance actions when the trustee refuses to do so. We first note that since Hartford Underwriters every court of appeals to address derivative standing to pursue avoidance claims has affirmed the practice’s validity. Two courts have expressly considered the impact of Hartford Underwriters and have upheld the practice. See PW Enters., Inc. v. N.D. Racing Comm’n (In re Racing Servs., Inc.), 540 F.3d 892, 898 & n. 7 (8th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Official Comm, of Unsecured Creditors of
[ "holding that bankruptcy courts can authorize creditors committees in chapter 11 proceedings to sue derivatively to avoid fraudulent transfers for the benefit of the estate notwithstanding hartford underwriters", "holding in a case where a chapter 11 trustee was appointed after a period during which the debt or had operated as debtor in possession that a chapter 11 trustee has two years from the date of his appointment not from the commencement of the chapter 11 case to bring avoidance actions", "holding denial of motion to convert from chapter 11 to chapter 7 is interlocutory", "holding that chapter 13 debtors have standing to bring avoidance actions by reasoning that chapter 13 trustee has standing but little incentive to bring avoidance actions that will result in benefit to debtors of recovering exempt assets", "holding that derivative standing is available to a creditor to pursue avoidance actions when it shows that a chapter 7 trustee or debtorinpossession in the case of chapter 11 is unable or unwilling to do so notwithstanding hartford underwriters" ]
44
undertakings in such a context could embroil the court in the merits of the underlying custody issues and would tend to dilute the force of the Article 13(b) exception. Danaipour, 286 F.3d at 25 (quoting the Brown Letter). Nevertheless, even where a district court has found grave risk arising from physical or psychological abuse, several Courts of Appeals have required district courts to consider undertakings prior to denying a petition. See, e.g., Simcox, 511 F.3d at 610-11 (remanding for assessment of whether undertakings could be fashioned to allow for return); Blondin, 189 F.3d at 249-50 (after affirming finding of grave risk, remanding for consideration whether arrangements could be made with a third party custodian to allow for repatriation). But see Baran, 526 F.3d at 1351-52 (<HOLDING>). Although this case involves domestic abuse
[ "holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court", "holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration", "holding that rule 11 sanctions imposed by district court remained in effect after case was remanded to state court upon a finding that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case", "holding that upon a finding of grave risk the district court did not have to consider undertakings", "holding that although that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs lacked standing the appellate court may nonetheless proceed to consider the district courts determination that plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted" ]
33
2010) (quoting Atomic Tattoos, LLC v. Morgan, 45 So.3d 63, 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)). However, “the protection of former customers generally does not qualify as a legitimate business interest where no identifiable agreement exists with such customers establishing that they would return with future work.” Carter, 9 So.3d at 1265 (citing Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So.2d 812 (Fla.1994)). Additionally, protection of an employer from ordinary competition is not a legitimate business interest, and a covenant designed solely for that purpose will not be enforced. PartyLite Gifts, Inc. v. MacMillan, 895 F.Supp.2d 1213, 1224 (M.D.Fla.2012) (interpreting section 542.335(1)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes); Colucci v. Kar Kare Auto. Grp., Inc., 918 So.2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>). The party seeking enforcement of the
[ "holding similar agreement void on public policy grounds", "holding that prospective waivers of claims are void as against public policy", "recognizing an agreement whose sole purpose is to prevent competition per se is void as a matter of public policy", "holding physicians covenants not to compete are unenforceable and void as a matter of public policy", "holding that where agreement prohibits recovery of attorneys fees in civil rights case the relevant portions of the arbitration policy are therefore void as against public policy" ]
22
As noted, the parties now agree that he only needed six credits. Further, Appellant ignores the additional evidence presented by Attorney Alva, including his status as a CLE presenter on capital case litigation, for which he received double CLE credits, and his significant history as one of the most experienced capital trial defense attorneys in the Commonwealth. Based upon this testimony, the trial court, as the sole arbiter of the credibility of Attorney Alva’s testimony, concluded that Attorney Alva possessed the six hours of capital case CLE credit he needed at the time of his entry of appearance in September, 2002, and given the facts of record, we see nothing upon which to disturb that factual finding. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Fahy, 512 Pa. 298, 516 A.2d 689, 694-95 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Concerning whether the trial court violated
[ "holding that the finders of fact are free to believe all some or none of the evidence presented to it and are further the sole resolvers of issues of credibility decisions made by finders of fact in these regards will not be disturbed on appeal", "holding jury as judge of credibility may believe all some or none of the testimony", "holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion", "holding jury is sole judge of witness credibility and may believe some witnesses and refuse to believe others", "holding mere conflict in testimony does not render evidence insufficient to support verdict because it is with province of fact finder to determine weight to be given to testimony and to believe all part or none of evidence" ]
00
Rule 5.2(C) of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, which required him to attach to his brief a certified copy of the district court order being appealed. Because of this failure, the OCCA declined to accept jurisdiction over the merits of his appeal. See Duvall v. State, 869 P.2d 332, 333 (OMa.Crim.App.1994) (“The rule is clear and applicable. An Appellant must affirmatively attach with his brief a copy of the order of the district court. The district court order is the equivalent of the judgment and sentence, which is required to confirm jurisdiction on this Court.”) (citations omitted). The district court concluded that the OCCA’s application of this procedural bar was an adequate and independent state ground. See Johnson v. Champion, 288 F.3d 1215, 1227 n. 3 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Petitioner did not attempt to excuse the
[ "holding state rule barring review of postconviction petitioners claims where petitioner failed to provide supporting documentation is adequate procedural ground on which to bar federal habeas review", "holding that a ground for relief not pled in a motion for postconviction relief is waived and cannot be raised on appeal", "holding that section 34810 is an adequate and independent state ground", "holding occas declination of jurisdiction over appeal from denial of postconviction relief based on petitioners failure to comply with occa rule 52 was adequate and independent state ground", "holding that 15a1419a3 is an independent and adequate state ground for a state courts finding of procedural default" ]
33
exception to disclosure falls within one of the statutory exceptions to disclosure and how that exception creates a compelling reason to withhold the information.”); see id. at 351-52 (Cayce, C.J., dissenting) (stating that, by presenting evidence that releasing information could compromise criminal investigation, governmental actor demonstrated compelling reason to withhold information). 39 . Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-630 (1994); see also Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-150 (1977) ("This presumpti ident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668, 679 (Tex.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931, 97 S.Ct. 1550, 51 L.Ed.2d 774 (1977). The AG has also consistently opined that the Act does not compel disclosure of information where "release of that information would impair some constitutional right." Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD-430 (1985) (<HOLDING>); see also Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-185 (1978)
[ "holding that lists of persons who visited with inmates are exempt from disclosure because information is confidential by constitutional law", "holding that the names of thirdparty inmates within memoranda were categorically exempt from disclosure absent compelling evidence of illegal activity by the bop", "holding that where an authorized disclosure is voluntarily made to a nonfederal party whether or not that disclosure is denominated confidential the government waives any claim that the information is exempt from disclosure under the deliberative process privilege", "holding that the government must provide the party seeking disclosure with a detailed index describing the documents the government claims are exempt from disclosure under foia", "holding records did not qualify as exempt confidential commercial information under exemption 4 because the information was not actually confidential" ]
00
Double Jeopardy Clause 'only proscribes resentencing where the defendant has developed a legitimate expectation of finality in his original sentence." Id. 18 (quoting Pasquarille v. United States, 130 F.3d 1220, 1222 (6th Cir.1997)); see also, United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 137-39, 101 S.Ct. 426, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980); Warnick v. Booher, 425 F.3d 842, 847 (10th Cir.2005). 137 While this court has not yet considered whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents the correction of a clerical error that amends a eriminal sentence, other jurisdictions have done so and have held that the correction does not violate principles of double jeopardy when there is no legitimate expectation of finality in the sentence. See Gallinat v. State, 941 So.2d 1237, 1238-42 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2006)(<HOLDING>); People v. Minaya, 54 N.Y.2d 360, 445 N.Y.S.2d
[ "recognizing that the expectation of finality and tranquility is an interest protected by the prohibition on double jeopardy", "holding that correction of trial courts miscalculation giving credit to defendant for time not actually served did not violate double jeopardy because defendant had no legitimate expectation of finality", "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 correction of sentence to conform with plea agreement did not violate double jeopardy because the defendant had no legitimate expectation of finality", "holding that a defendant is not entitled to credit for time served as a condition of probation" ]
11
unless the controlling person had no knowledge of or reasonable grounds to believe in the existence of the facts by reason of which the liability of the controlled person is alleged to exist. 15 U.S.C. § 77o. 6 .Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act provides: Every person who, directly or indirectly, controls any person liable under any provision of this chapter or of any rule or regulation thereunder shall also be liable jointly and severally with and to the same extent as such controlled person to any person to whom such controlled person is liable, unless the controlling person acted in good faith and did not directly or indirectly induce the act or acts F.2d 873, 881 (7th Cir.1992) (applying Eighth Circuit’s test) with Brown v. Enstar Group, Inc., 84 F.3d 393, 396 & n. 6 (11th Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>), cert, denied, — U.S. —, 117 S.Ct. 950, 136
[ "holding a defendant is liable as a control person if the defendant had the power to control the general affairs of the entity primarily liable at the time the entity violated the securities laws but declining to decide whether power to control means simply abstract power to control or actual exercise of the power to control internal quotations omitted", "holding authority to control limits duty to control", "holding that to establish a prima facie case of control person liability a plaintiff must establish that the alleged control person actually participated in ie exercised control over the operations of the primary violator in general internal quotations omitted", "recognizing that court has inherent power to control the judicial business before it", "recognizing power of district courts to control movement of cases from filing to final disposition" ]
00
F.3d 608, 612 (5th Cir.1996)). We conclude that, although the district court erroneously determined that the principles of Daubert did not apply to the re-creation and Agent Constantino’s testimony, the district court did not err in admitting the evidence. Under Daubert, the district court conducts a “preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.” Daubert, 113 S.Ct. at 2796; see Fed.R.Evid. 702 . This “gate-keeping” obligation on the part of the district court applies to all types of expert testimony, not just scientific testimony. See Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1174, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Many factors may bear on this inquiry,
[ "holding that dauberts basic gatekeeping obligation applies to all expert testimony", "holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive", "recognizing the basic principle of contract law that the obligation of good faith is an implied condition in every contract", "holding that insurance obligation was primary to indemnity obligation", "holding that a request for funds for expert testimony must show inter alia that the testimony is crucial and is subject to varying expert opinions" ]
00
proof of the four factors alleged to permit intervention in lieu of establishing venue. Since, under that interpretation, we are not permitted to make our own independent evaluation of the propriety of intervention or joinder from the record, our review becomes a review of the trial court’s abuse of discretion — and then only for abuse of discretion with respect to its ruling on the four factors that permit intervention or joinder of plaintiffs unable to establish proper venue — contrary to the express mandate of section 15.003(c)(1). Not only is Collier’s interpretation of section 15.003(c) contrary to the plain language of that section, it is contrary to the Texas Supreme Court’s interpretation of it. See Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex.1999) (<HOLDING>). Collier would have us give absolute deference
[ "holding that a ruling of the trial court to which no error has been assigned becomes the law of the case and is not subject to review by the court of appeals", "holding that an exhaustion of appellate remedies is required to make a trial courts ruling the law of the case", "holding that plain language of subsection 15003c requires court of appeals to make its own determination of the propriety of joinder under subsection 15003a with no deference to the trial courts ruling emphasis added appellate court is not constrained solely to review the pleadings and affidavits but should consider the entire record including any evidence presented at the hearing", "holding that the appeals court may affirm the ruling of the district court on any basis which the record supports", "holding that the trial court properly added a party defendant to conform to the evidence presented at the trial" ]
22
DCA 1995). With regard to Jain and Murphy’s appeal of the final judgment, we find that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings excluding certain evidence and, to the extent that any evidence was erroneously excluded, such error was harmless. See Special v. West Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So.3d 1251 (Fla. 2014) (applying harmless error standard in a civil appeal, requiring the beneficiary of the error to establish that there is no reasonable probability that the error contributed to the verdict). We also hold that the trial court properly denied Jain and Murphy’s motion for directed verdict and properly granted Cohen’s motion for directed verdict on Jain and Murphy’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims. See Sanders v. ERP Operating Ltd. P’ship, 157 So.3d 273, 277 (Fla. 2015) (<HOLDING>); Tylinski v. Klein Auto., Inc., 90 So.3d 870,
[ "holding that an appellate court viewing the evidence and all inferences of fact in light most favorable to nonmoving party can affirm a directed verdict only where no proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party", "recognizing that a motion for directed verdict should be granted when there is no reasonable evidence upon which a jury could legally predicate a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party", "holding that the nonmoving party must present specific evidence from which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in its favor", "holding that an appellate court considers all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and grants the state all reasonable inferences", "holding that the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and all doubts are resolved against the moving party" ]
00
S.E.2d at 666)). While we acknowledge that many of the factors offered by the State seem innocent when viewed in isolation, there is evidence to support the trial court’s finding of reasonable suspicion to prolong the traffic stop given the totality of the surrounding circumstances. In evaluating whether reasonable suspicion existed for Deputy Owens to prolong the traffic stop, the trial court first noted the large sum of money found in Moore’s pocket, finding it was unusual and therefore suspicious for an unemployed person to carry such a large amount of cash. We agree with the trial court that, under the circumstances of this case, the presence of a large amount of cash can be a factor supporting reasonable suspicion. See, e.g., United States v. Chhien, 266 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the trial court focused on
[ "holding that an officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct traffic stop even when his suspicion that a law has been violated is based on a reasonable mistake of law", "holding that even a de minimis extension of a traffic stop is unconstitutional absent reasonable suspicion", "holding that a conclusion that reasonable suspicion supported the stop of a vehicle was subsumed within the trial courts ruling that the officer had probable cause for the stop", "holding that the discovery of 2000 in cash during a traffic stop supported a finding of reasonable suspicion", "holding this framework applies whether the traffic stop is based on probable cause or reasonable suspicion" ]
33
in Germantown and Eastern Montgomery County, which the County determined is causing the need to expand the highway system. In Gaithersburg East, the fact that programmed highways are expected to relieve the traffic congestion and there is no need to build unprogrammed highways provides a rational basis to treat the new development in this area differently than the new development in the existing impact districts, where unprogrammed highwa e sub judice is Chapter 808, which gives Montgomery County broad taxing authority, authority that was lacking in those other jurisdictions. See also Home Builders v. Board of Palm Beach County Comm’rs, 446 So.2d 140 (Fla.App. 4th Dist.1983), cert. denied, 451 So.2d 848 (Fla.1984), appeal dismissed, 469 U.S. 976, 105 S.Ct. 376, 83 L.Ed.2d 311 (1984) (<HOLDING>). We likewise hold that the impact tax imposed
[ "holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection", "holding the exclusion did not violate the equal protection clause of the wyoming constitution or the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution", "holding that neither the due process clause nor the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment require the appointment of counsel on a petition for discretionary review to a state supreme court", "holding that the impact fee there imposed did not violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment using the rational basis test we discuss here", "holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection" ]
33
Dade County, 343 So.2d 953, 953 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). 2 . Florida’s charter counties numbered 19 as of 2005: Alachua, Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Clay, Columbia, Duval, Hillsborough, Lee, Leon, Miami-Dade, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota, Seminole, and Volusia. Florida Association of Counties— http ://www.fl-counties. com/ aboutflco/charter counties.shtml. Charters are formal written documents that confer powers, duties, or privileges on the county and must be approved, along with any amendments, by the voters of the county. Id. 3 . The parties do not dispute that the language at issue in section 171.044(4) applies only to voluntary annexation. See Village of Wellington v. Palm Beach County, 941 So.2d 595, 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), review denied, 954 So.2d 29 (2007) (<HOLDING>). 4 . In enacting part II, the legislature
[ "holding such intoxication to be voluntary", "holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense", "holding that the subject of section 1710444 is voluntary annexation", "holding that title vii is subject to the transfer provisions of section 1404a", "holding appeal improper since the dismissal was voluntary" ]
22
his jury waiver. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. WHITE, J. joins with note: I join the opinion of the Court. However, I also agree with the reasoning in J. MEYERS’ concurring opinion. 1 . The Court of Appeals originally overruled appellant’s points of error on the ground that they were not preserved for review. Marquez v. State, No. 03-93-458-CR (Tex.App.—Austin Feb. 2, 1994) (unpublished opinion). On petition for discretionary review, this Court held that the points were properly preserved and remanded the cause for further proceedings. Marquez v. State, No. 266-94 (Tex.Crim.App. May 18, 1994) (unpublished opinion). 2 . The Sixth Circuit seems to reach a similar conclusion with regard to federal constitutional law. Sinistaj v. Burt, 66 F.3d 804 (6th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, although the case has apparently
[ "holding that the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to decisions to impose consecutive sentences", "recognizing the right to waive a jury trial", "holding with or without a local rule so requiring failure to file motion to withdraw the reference when jury demanded was a waiver of right to jury trial", "holding that there is both a statutory and a constitutional right to a jury trial under erisa because congress lacks constitutional authority to limit right to a jury", "holding that a trial courts refusal to withdraw a jury waiver ordinarily does not implicate the federal constitutional right to a jury trial" ]
44
2009 SD 99, ¶33, 775 N.W.2d 221, 235 (2009) (“The community caretaker exception has been recognized only in the context of automobiles by the United States Supreme Court.” (citing Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973))); Wright v. State, 7 S.W.3d 148, 151-52 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (describing Cady as recognizing “a community caretaking function of law enforcement as a reasonable exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement” and acknowledging “the existence of the community caretaking function in Texas”); Provo City v. Warden, 844 P.2d 360, 363-65 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (upholding a “seizure” as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment based on the community caretaking doctrine); State v. Ford, 2010 VT 39, ¶ 11, 188 Vt. 17, 998 A.2d 684, 689 (2010) (<HOLDING>); Knight v. Commonwealth, 61 Va.App. 297, 734
[ "recognizing emergency exception", "recognizing exception", "recognizing the community caretaking exception but holding it inapplicable to justify the police action at issue", "recognizing that the community caretaking exception is distinct from the emergency aid or emergency assistance exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement", "holding that community caretaker exception applied but citing and relying on cases discussing the emergency aid exception" ]
33
to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3); see Graham ex rel. Estate of Graham v. Cnty. of Washtenaw, 358 F.3d 377, 385 (6th Cir.2004). Here, the district court found that Moniz “simply is attempting to re-argue [] issues which were already ruled upon by the Court when it dismissed his Complaint,” and thus denied the motion to reconsider. R. 14 (Dist. Ct. Order at 3) (Page ID # 129). This court has stated that a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reconsider where the motion “merely raise[s] arguments that were already ruled upon.” Graham, 358 F.3d at 385; see also Lommen v. McIntyre, 125 Fed.Appx. 655, 659 (6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). There was no abuse of discretion in the
[ "holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing", "holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds", "holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration", "holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for reconsideration where the motion presented nothing new and merely rephrased allegations in the complaint", "holding under third circuit law that the denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion" ]
33
an erroneous legal standard. Instead, Hiedeman argues that “[t]he rationale for [abortion] statutes— the woman’s health and safety — applies with no less force where the woman rather than another person performs the abortion.” Thus, he argues that the U.S. District Court erred in determining that McCormack was likely to succeed on the merits. We disagree. a. History of Abortion Statutes. Historically, laws regulating abortion have sought to further the state’s interest in protecting the health and welfare of pregnant women, who alone bear the burden and risks of pregnancies. With this interest in mind, abortion statutes were first enacted to protect pregnant females from third parties providing dangerous abortions. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 151, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) (<HOLDING>); Abele v. Markle, 342 F.Supp. 800, 806
[ "recognizing minnesotas interest in protecting the interests of the child", "recognizing that the purpose of abortion laws in the late 19th and early 20th centuries did focus on the states interest in protecting the womans health rather than in preserving the embryo and fetus", "recognizing and protecting the interest of municipality in preserving nonpartisan police force and appearance thereof", "holding that laws with the purpose of placing an obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion are invalid", "holding that the governments interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse but also protecting childrens interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents" ]
11
519 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana [6th Dist.] 1975, writ dism’d). NCNB’s wrongful setoff in this case amounted to an act manifesting the bank’s clear repudiation of Perry Brothers’ rights to the company’s deposited money in the bank; this setoff action constitutes an act of conversion in this case. Perry Brothers has established by the preponderance of the evidence that NCNB converted approximately $1.3 million of Perry Brothers’ property between November 27-29, 1990, when the bank exercised unauthorized dominion and control over “readily identifiable” Perry Brothers funds being transferred through the “ACH” wire transfer, cash collection system. See generally e.g., Houston Nat’l Bank v. Biber, 613 S.W.2d 771, 774 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). 2. As a tort, conversion allows damage awards
[ "holding a claim for money damages is an adequate remedy at law and so it does not provide a sufficient basis for injunctive relief notwithstanding the possibility that a money judgment will be uncollectible", "holding that declaratory judgment requiring party to pay a specific sum of money is properly characterized as a money judgment", "holding that action for lien seeks money damages because its goal is to seize or attach money in the hands of the government as compensation ", "holding that exhaustion is required under the plra even if the plaintiff seeks only money damages and money damages are not available as relief", "recognizing that an action will lie for conversion of money when its identification is possible and there is an obligation to deliver the specific money in question or otherwise particularly treat the specific money" ]
44
1402, 1405, (11th Cir.1996), that it was not clearly established under Branti that the dismissal of clerical employees of a county tax collector’s office for political reasons violated their First Amendment rights. Beauregard controls the qualified immunity analysis in this ease. Moreover, it is not entirely without significance that the district court, with full briefing and two years after Nikolits’s actions, concluded that those actions did not violate the law. Finally, we note that plaintiffs’ argument that the law was clearly established by Elrod and Branti is further undermined by the split of the circuits concerning what those two decisions mean. See supra our discussion at 2510; see also Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 533-36, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2819-20, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (<HOLDING>). While we have endeavored in this opinion to
[ "holding that because a city inspector was not entitled to official immunity the city was not entitled to vicarious official immunity", "holding that attorney who was retained by city to assist in conducting official investigation into firefighters potential wrongdoing was entitled to qualified immunity in firefighters 1983 claim because official investigation of state employee was activity of the type entitled to qualified immunity", "holding that official defendant was entitled to qualified immunity and noting that legal uncertainty about the meaning of a supreme court decision was reflected in the decisions of the lower federal courts", "recognizing that decisions of lower federal courts interpreting federal law are not binding on state courts", "holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity" ]
22
Respondents reversed their position at oral argument) that once subsection four applies, subsection one no longer governs. The parties do dispute the meaning of the word “claimant” in subsection four. Under the plurality’s view, as Chief Justice Eismann points out in the Gillihan II dissent, the word “claimant” in subsection four must be synonymous with the idea of “prevailing party.” This is because, in order for the word “claimant” in subsection four to refer to either the defendant or plaintiff, it must also signify that such a defendant or plaintiff has prevailed in the personal injury action, since losing parties do not recover attorney fees under Idaho law. See Gillihan II at 271, 92 P.3d at 521 (Eismann, J., concurring in disse 53 Idaho 200, 201, 23 P.2d 739, 740 (1933) (<HOLDING>); In re Segregation of School Dist. No. 58 from
[ "holding elimination of provisions prior to passage of bill requiring a certificate of convenience and necessity indicates legislature intentionally omitted such provisions", "holding that statutory notice provisions for notice of default and opportunity to cure were waived by provisions of note as to one obligor though provisions applied to coobligor who used property as residence", "holding that the hearing provisions of the ina supersede the provisions of the apa", "holding predecessor statute unconstitutional specifically because of vicariousliability provisions elimination of intent requirement", "holding that such provisions are valid" ]
00
entered an order finding probable‘cause that the property was used to facilitate the commission of a felony. Although Flagg’s atto ation of a discovery order will constitute an abuse of discretion where the trial court fails to make express written findings of fact supporting the . conclusion that the failure to obey the court order demonstrated willful or deliberate disregard. Express findings are required to ensure that the trial judge has consciously determined that the failure was more than a mistake, neglect, or inadvertence, and to assist the reviewing court to the extent the record is susceptible to more than one interpretation. Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So.2d 492, 495-96 (Fla.2004) (citing Tubero, 569 So.2d at 1273); cf. Ledo v. Seavie Resources, LLC, 149 So.Sd 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (<HOLDING>). In this case, Flagg filed a motion to set
[ "holding that although trial courts oral opinion may be used as a reference in the interpretation of its written findings of fact it is not a finding of fact", "holding because defendant does not argue in his brief that these findings of fact are not supported by evidence in the record this court is bound by the trial courts findings of fact", "holding that where the record plainly reflected ledos willful and deliberate disregard of the courts repeated orders to respond to interrogatory requests the trial courts failure to provide written findings of fact in its order striking ledos pleadings did not require reversal", "holding that the trial courts oral expression in open court of its future intention to render a judgment was not itself a judgment but rather the trial courts written findings of fact and conclusions of law were its judgment", "holding that erroneous findings of fact not necessary to support the judgment of the court are not grounds for reversal" ]
22
crediting favorable evidence if reasonable jurors could, and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not.” City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 807 (Tex.2005). A. Applicable Statute of Limitations As a threshold issue, the parties disagree over the length of the statute of limitations for Nelda’s breach of an implied warranty claim. In her last live pleading Nelda asserted a claim for breach of a common law implied warranty to repair her home in a good and workmanlike manner. She also asserted, under her DTPA cause of action, that Olshan breached an implied warranty that its foundation repairs would be done in a good and workmanlike manner. Olshan asserts the limitations period is two years for all of h 09, 412 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Darr Equip. Co. v. Allen, 824 S.W.2d 710, 712
[ "holding statute of limitations for dtpa action including claim for breach of express or implied warranty under the dtpa is two years", "holding that a twoyear statute of limitations period applies to all 1983 actions brought in pennsylvania", "holding that because the dtpa is the only way of pursuing an implied warranty claim for repairs to existing tangible goods such a claim must necessarily be brought within the twoyear dtpa limitations period", "holding plaintiff had to commence his breach of implied warranty action under the dtpa within two years because tjhis special statute of limitations denies plaintiffs alternative proposal of entitlement to recover for breach of the common law implied warranty", "holding that an implied warranty to perform services in a good and workmanlike manner is an action available under the dtpa and is subject to the twoyear limitations provided by the dtpa" ]
22
Smith v. Southern Pacific Co., 187 F.2d 397, 402 (9th Cir.1951) ("The necessity of establishing in the complaints the relationship of the defendants, in this case an employment relationship, is at best a doubtful question of state law which should be tried in the state court and not determined in removal proceedings”). Federal district courts are not entitled to determine uncertain issues of law in order to ascertain whether there has been a fraudulent joinder, as those such issues must be determined in state court. See e.g., Green v. Amerada Hess Corp., 707 F.2d 201, 205 (5th Cir.1983) ("if there is even a possibility that a state court would find a cause of action stated ... then the federal court must [remand]”). 11 . See, e.g., Insinga v. LaBella, 845 F.2d 249, 254 (11th Cir.1988)
[ "holding that although the resident defendant had not been formally served prior to removal the resident defendant had made a voluntary appearance in state court and therefore jurisdiction was not proper under 1441b", "holding that another states reservation of personal jurisdiction over a florida resident for the purpose of modifying its decree may last as long as the effectiveness of the decree and that no dueprocess violation occurs by the entry of a default modification against the florida resident if the florida resident was afforded proper notice", "holding that once a plaintiff has pled facts in the complaint indicating that the statute of limitations is a complete or partial bar to an action it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to plead either in the complaint or in amendments to it facts establishing an exception to the affirmative defense", "holding that were the court to find fraudulent joinder as to a nondiverse defendant on the basis of evidence equally dispositive of the liability of that defendant and a nondiverse defendant a refusal later in the proceedings to give judgment for the diverse defendant on the same grounds in turn would require the court to revisit a ruling that the nondiverse defendant was fraudulently joined", "holding that fraudulent joinder required a finding that either there was no possibility that the plaintiff could prove a cause of action against the resident defendant or that the plaintiff fraudulently pled jurisdictional facts in order to subject that resident defendant to the jurisdiction of the state court" ]
44
such that the name of — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1885, 1895, 161 L.Ed.2d 796 (2005) (“States may not enact laws that burden out-of-state producers or shippers simply to give a competitive advantage to in-state businesses.”). Based on these decisions, he argues that Va.Code 46.2-716 violates the Constitutional prohibition of state laws that discriminate against out of state commerce. The merits of defendant’s negative commerce clause argument are doubtful, given that the Virginia statute, as applied to all vehicles traveling in Virginia, is both reasonable and neither discriminates against interstate commerce, nor results in an unreasonable burden on such commerce. See American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Michigan Public Service Com’n, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 2419, 2423, 162 L.Ed.2d 407 (2005) (<HOLDING>). In any event, it is unnecessary to reach the
[ "holding 18 usc 922o a valid exercise of congressional power under commerce clause", "holding that michigans imposition of flat 100 annual fee on trucks engaging in intrastate commercial hauling was valid exercise of states police power which did not violate dormant commerce clause", "holding that state regulations of intrastate wildlife are within dormant commerce clause", "holding that dormant commerce clause complaint by instate resident against municipality failed on merits because challenged rule regulated evenhandedly and did not burden interstate commerce", "recognizing that congress had the power to regulate boxcars that traveled exclusively intrastate because of their inherent mobility and connection to interstate commerce it is no objection to such an exertion of commerce clause power that the dangers intended to be avoided arise in whole or in part out of matters connected with intrastate commerce" ]
11
Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co., 788 F.2d 1280, 1283 (7th Cir.1986); In re S.N.A. Nut Co., 198 B.R. 541, 543 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1996). Here, the central issue is whether the Plaintiffs were “known” or “unknown” claimants at the time of the Bar Order. As noted above, actual notice is necessary only as to known creditors while constructive notice is sufficient for unknown creditors. See New York, 344 U.S. at 296, 73 S.Ct. 299; In re Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific R.R. Co., 974 F.2d 775, 788 (7th Cir.1992). Constructive notice can be satisfied through publication notice since “in the case of persons missing or unknown, employment of an indirect and even probably futile means of notification is all that the situation permits and creates no constitutional bar to a final de .1989) (<HOLDING>); In re Best Products Co., Inc., 140 B.R. 353,
[ "holding death caused by unknown object provides sufficient notice", "holding publication notice in the wall street journal adequate under bankruptcy law", "holding that governments choice to publish notice in the new york times did not violate statutory publication requirements even though publication in the houston chronicle would have been more likely to provide notice to the claimant", "holding that notice published in the new york times and the wall street journal was sufficient to satisfy due process owed to unknown creditors", "holding publication in the wall street journal sufficient notice to unknown creditor injured in louisiana" ]
44
section 302, but to preempt it. The debtors argue that precluding conversion of pending cases defeats the purpose of the 1986 Act, pointing to legislative history indicating that the Act was meant to give relief to farm families in economic crisis. See, e.g., 132 Cong.Rec. H9001 (daily ed. Oct. 2, 1986) (remarks of Mr. Synar). However, the purpose of giving farm families relief is not inconsistent with a decision to make the provisions of the new chapter available only in cases filed after the effective date of the Act. Congress could rationally have chosen to avoid disrupting the progress of pending cases, while finding it preferable to change the law governing future cases. Cf. Central Trust Co. v. Official Creditors’ Committee, 454 U.S. 354, 102 S.Ct. 695, 70 L.Ed.2d 542 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Congress’ general intent to give farm
[ "holding to the effect that a court must consider section 24 fifth in conjunction with the antidiscrimination provisions of the bankruptcy reform act of 1978 as amended which are codified at title 11 of the united states code", "holding retroactive application of the act to prosecution that was pending before the effective date of the act was precluded because the act is prospective", "holding the broad jurisdictional grant given the bankruptcy courts under the 1978 bankruptcy act unconstitutional", "holding that the bankruptcy reform act effectively overruled wrenn", "holding that the bankruptcy reform act of 1978 publ no 95598 92 stat 2549 precluded dismissal of cases pending before enactment of the reform act in order to refile under the act" ]
44
documents to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment); Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d at 1123; and Gordon v. Watson, 622 F.2d at 123. 62 . See Wallace v. Texas Tech University, 80 F.3d at 1047; Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075. (5th Cir.1994); King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d at 346; Dorsett v. Board of Trustees for State Colleges & Universities, 940 F.2d 121, 123 (5th Cir.1991); and Gordon v. Watson, 622 F.2d at 123. The filing of an unverified amended complaint renders a verified original complaint a nullity unless the amended complaint specifically refers to and adopts or incorporates by reference the earlier pleadings. King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d at 346; and Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc., 759 F.2d 504, 508 (5th Cir.1985). 63 . See King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d at 346, (<HOLDING>); Salas v. Carpenter, 980 F.2d at 304-05, and
[ "holding that a trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment", "holding that a verified complaint can be considered as summary judgment evidence only to the extent that it comports with the requirements of rule 56e", "holding that a verified complaint is treated as an affidavit for summary judgment purposes and considered in determining whether material issues of fact exist", "holding that rule 56e requires that summary judgment affidavits be based upon personal knowledge contain admissible evidence and affirmatively demonstrate the competency of the affiant to testify as to the matters contained therein", "holding that facts were not disputed because nonmovant failed to contest them with specific sworn evidence as required under rule 56e" ]
11
opinion as to whether or not the evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant or defendants acted or failed to act within the appropriate standards of care as charged in the complaint.” Ind. Code § 34-18-10-22(a) (emphases added). Wren’s Proposed Complaint charged that “[t]he medical treatment provided by Defendants fell below the standard of care within the medical community and proximately caused or proximately contributed to Leslie Wren’s death.” Appellants’ Appendix at 29. Wren timely filed his Submission which contained evidence related to an alleged breach in the standard of care regarding Leslie’s fluid and electrolyte balance, and it can therefore be presumed that the Panel considered such a breach and addressed it in the Panel Opinion. See Miller, 679 N.E.2d at 1332 (<HOLDING>); see also Johnson v. St. Vincent Hosp., Inc.,
[ "recognizing that a plaintiff must produce a medical expert to testify as to causation in all but the most selfevident medical malpractice actions", "holding that the medical review panel is authorized to review the medical records and other submitted material pertaining to each defendants treatment of a patient and that while a medical malpractice plaintiff must as a prerequisite to filing suit present the proposed complaint for review and expert opinion by a medical review panel there is no requirement for such plaintiff to fully explicate and provide the particulars or legal contentions regarding the claim", "holding that plaintiffs claim that medical providers did not comply with baker act was not subject to medical malpractice statutes ajlthough a medical diagnosis is necessary in order to involuntarily commit a patient the process of complying with the statute does not require medical skill or judgment", "holding that conduct by the plaintiff contributing to his illness or medical condition and furnishing the occasion for medical treatment is not a defense to medical malpractice where a doctor negligently treated a man who had attempted to commit suicide", "holding unconstitutional the wyoming medical review panel act" ]
11
house.” This is sufficient to connect West to the conspiracy of which Chapman was a part. See United States v. Misher, 99 F.3d 664, 668 (5th Cir. 1996) (stating that an individual’s “presence and association with other members of the conspiracy, when supported by other evidence, may be used to support the finding of a conspiracy”). Therefore, even, if the jury believed that only West knew about the guns, they had ample evidence that West was a co-conspirator of Chapman’s. West’s testimony would not likely have resulted in Chapman’s acquittal. Giv-. en these shortcomings of Chapman’s motion for a new trial, the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on Chapman’s motion. See United States v. Brewer, 60 F.3d 1142, 1145-46 (5th Cir. 1995) (<HOLDING>). B. Boyer Boyer argues that the district court
[ "holding that affidavit from a new witness was not newly discovered evidence because trial counsel knew of the existence of the witness before trial trial counsel with due diligence could have discovered the evidence", "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", "holding defendant not entitled toa hearing on his motion for a new trial where he failed to prove that his new evidence was in fact newly discovered and that its recent discovery was in no way attributable to a previous lack of diligence", "holding that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence 1 the evidence must have been discovered after trial 2 the failure to discover this evidence must not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant 3 the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching 4 the evidence must be material and 5 the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted", "holding that to obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence the defendant must allege facts from which the court may infer diligence on the part of the defendant" ]
22
. The record indicates that Heard has been confined to at least three different maximum-security facilities, including the Standish Maximum Correctional Facility in Standish, Michigan, the Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility in Baraga, Michigan, and the Marquette Branch Prison in Marquette, Michigan. 3 . The R & R also recommended denial of Heard's motion for a preliminary injunction and motion for summary judgment, both of which had been filed before the defendants filed their motion to dismiss. 4 . Heard styled the motion an "affidavit,” but it was unsworn. 5 . With respect to Heard’s RLUIPA claim against defendants in their official capacities, Heard may seek only declaratory or injunctive relief and not monetary relief. See Cardinal v. Metrish, 564 F.3d 794, 798-801 (6th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). This court has not ruled, however, on whether
[ "holding that states and state officials acting in their official capacities are not persons subject to liability under 1983", "holding that state sovereign immunity bars state constitutional claims", "holding that neither a state agency nor its officials acting in their official capacities may be sued under section 1983", "holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars the recovery of monetary damages under rluipa when state officials are sued in their official capacities", "holding that neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons under 1983" ]
33
may not retaliate against inmates for filing grievances. Regardless of whether Booker’s right was obvious or “manifestly apparent” from broader principles in the decisional law, we find that it was clearly established based on a robust “consensus of persuasive authority.” The Second, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits have all recognized in published decisions that inmates possess a right, grounded in the First Amendment’s Petition Clause, to be free from retaliation in response to filing a prison grievance. T r. 2006) (“First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for a redress of grievances are violated when a prisoner is punished for filing a grievance.... ”); Toolasprashad v. Bureau of Prisons, 286 F.3d 576, 584-85 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>). Even more, the Third, Fifth, and Tenth
[ "holding that an inmate has a first amendment right to file grievances against prison officials", "recognizing that prisoners undoubtedly exercise first amendment petition right when filing grievances and stating that prison officials may not retaliate against prisoners for filing grievances", "holding no first amendment right to file frivolous grievances", "holding that administrative remedies are unavailable if prison officials fail to respond to prisoners grievances", "recognizing first amendment petition right where inmate alleged retaliation for filing grievances" ]
11
the requisite actual intent demanded by § 548(a)(1). Mayo v. Pioneer Bank & Trust Co., 270 F.2d 823 (5th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 962, 80 5.Ct. 878, 4 L.Ed.2d 877 (1960); Cf. In re White, 221 F.Supp. 64 (N.D.Cal.1963). With respect to the alternate basis for claiming a fraudulent transfer, when Amelia transferred her one-half interest in the property to William on April 18, 1979, she received no consideration. Amelia had a claim upon William at any time to require him to transfer title back to her without payment to him. Thus, it cannot be said that when William transferred a one-half interest in the property to Amelia on July 3, 1980, he received less than a reasonable equivalent value for the interest transferred. Luper v. Ruhl, 148 F.Supp. 888, 890 (S.D.Ohio 1956) (<HOLDING>); Mayo v. Pioneer Bank & Trust Co., supra. The
[ "holding that because no real property interest was transferred to the agent by virtue of her redeeming the property the statute of frauds was inapplicable", "holding that property transferred by a spouse to avoid support obligation may be considered on the issue of property distribution as well as alimony", "holding a wife liable for necessary medical expenses incurred by her husband under the doctrine even though the wife did not sign as a guarantor and did not request that her husband be admitted nor anticipate that her husband would be admitted", "holding that a reservation clause gave a life estate to a spouse pursuant to a deed reserving use of the property to both husband and wife for life even though the husband had no interest in the property", "holding that where a bankrupt wife transferred a certain lot to her husband the husband being already the equitable owner of the transferred property it cannot be said that the lot was transferred to him without consideration" ]
44
to the correction. Because we hold that this issue was properly preserved, we need not remand this case to the trial court for clarification of the record. See Blecker v. Kofoed, 672 P.2d 526, 528 n. 4 (Colo.1983) (stating: "Our disposition of this case makes it unnecessary to consider the appropriateness of a remand for clarification"). 10 . Arguments not raised before the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal. In re Estate of Stevenson v. Hollywood Bar & Cafe, Inc., 832 P.2d 718, 721 n. 5 (Colo.1992). 11 . We find Allen's arguments to the contrary unpersuasive. Although we agree that consent clauses in insurance contracts are to be liberally construed to provide coverage. See Wiglesworth v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 917 P.2d 288 65, 382, 541 N.W.2d 753, 758-59 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Palomar Ins. Corp. v. Guthrie, 583 So.2d 1304
[ "holding that breach of good faith and fair dealing claim requires showing of breach of contract", "holding that where the conduct forming the basis of the plaintiffs breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing claim is the same conduct forming the basis for the breach of contract claim the claims merge and there is no separate cause of action for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing", "holding that the duty of good faith and fair dealing is a contractual duty", "holding when an insurers alleged breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing toward its insured involves facts and circumstances within the common knowledge or ordinary experience of an average juror an insured need not introduce expert testimony to establish a bad faith claim", "holding that an insurers violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing was actionable under the consumer protection act" ]
33
that [Chris] commit the 'crime of Aggravated Assault; or b. Was aware that his conduct was reasonably certain to result in [Chris] committing the crime of Aggravated Assault. (Emphases in original.) 124 During deliberation, the jury sent a note to the court seekmg clarification of two topics: Define => Aggravated Assault? Question: If leaving Kelly in the canyon does that = "Aggravated Assault"? The district court, without consulting Defendant's counsel or the State, responded in writing that "the elements for the crime of aggravated assault are given in the instructions, The other question, must be decided without my help. It is for the jury to decide." 125 The Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure specify how a district court is to react to notes from the jury, The court may " 1897) (<HOLDING>). This is especially true when the
[ "holding good faith jury instruction is not necessary when the court has given an adequate specific intent instruction", "holding that it was not error for the court to give a substantive new instruction to the jury after deliberations began where the instruction was given in court with the defendant and his counsel present", "holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given", "holding that issue of inadequate jury instruction was waived because the instruction given was the one expressly requested by defense counsel", "holding that it was not plain error for the court not to give a self defense jury instruction where the defendant did not request one" ]
11
was again increased in 2000, and the resulting reductions to his Navy pension further reduced Susan’s benefits. Finally, in 2003, Ronald’s disability benefit was increased to 100 percent and Susan’s benefits were “significantly reduced” although not altogether eliminated. On April 23, 2003, Susan filed this action seeking to enforce the terms of the PSA that both parties agreed to in 1986. In a bench decision on December 5, 2003, the Family Court hearing justice found that Ronald impermissibly had modified the PSA when he “unilaterally applied for disability benefits” and that he had breached the contract between the parties. The court entered judgment on July 21, 2004, ordering that Susan receive a sum equal to 35 percent of the gross pension the husband would have received, had ) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, plaintiff asserts that the
[ "holding that military retirement benefits are to be considered deferred pay for past services", "holding pension conferred cola was an accrued benefit and not ancillary because it was intended to provide retirement income commenced only at retirement and was a benefit generally transferrable to succeeding employers", "holding that a former spouse is a proportionate owner of the other spouses future military retirement pay and is thus entitled to onehalf of the percentage of such pay representing the number of military marriage years relative to the total length of military service", "holding that military retirement benefits are current pay and thus significantly different than other retirement benefits", "holding that disposable retirement pay from military pension was equal to gross retirement pay less federal income taxes" ]
44
check and “failing to reverse or disclose this transfer.” During cross-examination of a government witness, Senffner asked whether the funds had been returned to the SEC by late August. The witness responded that the funds were returned “[w]hatever day that Mr. Senffner had been ordered by the Court to submit was the day that the money came back.” On redirect the government briefly asked questions related to this topic. In response, the witness stated that Senffner had been held in contempt of court and ordered to return the funds by that date. Ordinarily, an inquiry into the date of an incident’s occurrence would not warrant further inquiry by the government into the reason for that incident’s occurrence — the proverbial “door” is not that wide open. Cf. Thomas, 155 F.3d at 836 (<HOLDING>). But that is not what occurred here. Senffner
[ "holding that misleading testimony regarding the purpose of a proceeding did not warrant inquiry into the result of the proceeding", "holding that a witness who testifies in one proceeding may not be compelled to give further testimony in a different proceeding", "holding that a proceeding under section 547 is a core proceeding", "holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding", "holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding" ]
00
of civil proceedings, as well as for violations of the Donnelly Act, the New York antitrust statute. These claims, however, fail for many of the same reasons as they do when fashioned as federal antitrust claims. First, as the parties agree, the Don-nelly Act is modelled on and governed by the same standards as the federal antitrust laws. State of New York v. Mobil Oil Corp., 38 N.Y.2d 460, 463, 381 N.Y.S.2d 426, 428, 344 N.E.2d 357, 359 (1976). Plaintiffs have suggested no reason why or how the policies underlying the Donnelly Act would be ill-served by the application of Noerr immunity to these claims. Accordingly, Noerr must apply in much the same manner to immunize claims based on non-sham litigation. Suburban Restoration Co., Inc. v. Acmat Corp., 700 F.2d 98, 101-02 (2d Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Defendants also argue that other state
[ "holding unfair trade practices and consumer protection law applicable to residential leases", "recognizing the statelaw privilege because there was no federal claim to which the records sought would be relevant", "holding that a cause of action exists under the connecticut unfair trade practices act for violations of the cuipa", "holding that plaintiffs statelaw claim was completely preempted under federal statute even though relief soughtan injunctionwas not available under the federal statute", "holding connecticut statelaw unfair trade practices claim to be subject to noerr immunity because connecticut statute was coextensive with federal statute subject to noerr" ]
44
doing something that can be characterized as resistance—even when that resistance includes physically preventing an officer’s manipulations of his body.”). In addition, the black-and-white bus surveillance video fails to clearly show what occurred as the officers forcefully “escorted” Hulett off the bus, and leaves the viewer wondering whether, and to what extent, additional force may have been applied during those moments that might have contributed to plaintiffs broken hip. And even following plaintiffs removal from the bus, it cannot be said as a matter of law that Sergeant Galvin acted in an objectively reasonable manner by dragging plaintiff some distance across the pavement, since plaintiff did not appear to be offering any further resistance at that point. Tracy, 623 F.3d at 98 (<HOLDING>); Meyes v. Baltimore Cnty., 713 F.3d 723, 733
[ "holding that otherwise acceptable use of pepper spray became excessive when arrestee was offering no further active resistance", "holding that bystander prisoners who were exposed to pepper spray when prison officials dispensed spray across their pod area to break up a fight were not subjected to excessive force", "holding that no objectively reasonable police officer could believe that after vinyard was under arrest handcuffed behind her back secured in the back seat of a patrol car with a protective screen between the officer and the arrestee an officer could stop the car grab such arrestee by her hair and arm bruise her and apply pepper spray to try to stop the intoxicated arrestee from screaming and returning the officers exchange of obscenities and insults during a short fourmile jail ride", "holding that the use of pepper spray on nonviolent protestors was excessive force", "holding that two bursts of pepper spray to stop fighting in a cell was not considered excessive force and did not violate prisoners eighth amendment rights" ]
00
such entities from exercising their right of eminent domain. We disagree. The statute unambiguously prohibits any curtailment or limitation of an FmHA-indebted water association’s services resulting from municipal annexation or inclusion. This language indicates a congressional mandate that local governments not encroach upon the services provided by such associations, be that encroachment in the form of competing franchises, new or additional permit requirements, or similar means. To read a loophole into this absolute prohibition, as Madison would have us do, and allow a city to do via condemnation what it is forbidden by other means, would render nugatory the clear purpose of § 1926(b). See Moore Bayou Water Association, Inc. v. Town of Jonestown, 628 F.Supp. 1367 (N.D.Miss.1986) (<HOLDING>). Madison contends that this construction of
[ "holding that 1926b prohibited munici pality from using its annexation of territory within rural water district as springboard for providing its own water service to residents", "holding that until the state issues a certificate of appropriation any right to use the water remains inchoate", "holding that village could not condition provision of water services on annexation where prospective customer was within a rural water associations service area and the water association was federally indebted", "holding municipal condemnation of water associations facilities and certificate violative of 1926b", "holding that because exclusion was not provided to certificate holder terms of the certificate controlled" ]
33
February 8, 2011 probation extension order failed to extend his probation period because the October 26, 2005 restitution order was improperly delegated to the probation officer, rather than determined by the circuit court as required by Code § 19.2-305.1(D), thus any subsequent order is invalid. In relevant part, Code § 19.2-305.1(D) states that “[a]t the time of sentencing, the court shall determine the amount to be repaid by the defendant and the terms and conditions thereof.” The amount of restitution to be paid by the defendant is within the sole province of the circuit court to determine and that determination may not be delegated to another department of government. See Code § 19.2-305.2; see also McCullough v. Commonwealth, 38 Va.App. 811, 815, 568 S.E.2d 449, 451 (2002) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the circuit court’s October 26,
[ "holding that the sentencing judge could consider the defendants subsequent arrest even though the charges were dismissed during sentencing", "holding part of the sentencing phase of trial the restitution amount is determined following conviction and is a matter resting within the sole province of the sentencing judge", "holding that the hearsay rule is not suspended in the sentencing phase", "holding that when trial court orders restitution at sentencing pursuant to statute the defendant is entitled to notice of the amount claimed and the opportunity to dispute the amount", "holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses" ]
11
a “public official,” places a great emphasis on two of the elements: (1) the statutory powers and duties of a position, and (2) whether that position exercised sovereign power. See, e.g., Spaulding, 102 Iowa at 649, 72 N.W. at 291 (concluding that the treasurer of the commissioners of pharmacy was not a public officer because the position of treasurer “was a creation of the commission ... and at all times subject absolutely to their control”); McKinley, 228 Iowa at 1189-91, 293 N.W. at 451 (concluding that county engineer was an “official” because he furnished a bond and took an oath of office; but more importantly because several statutes defining the powers and duties of the county engineer delegated certain sovereign powers to that position); Whitney, 232 Iowa at 71, 4 N.W.2d at 398 (<HOLDING>); Hutton, 235 Iowa at 56, 16 N.W.2d at 20
[ "holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment", "holding that a teachers complaint to school authorities that her principal had instructed her to make improper changes in her own students grades was unprotected because it was made pursuant to her official duties", "holding that a schoolteacher elected by the school board was an employee not an official and therefore entitled to benefits under the workers compensation act", "holding that a schoolteacher elected by the school board was not an official because she was not required to give bond or take an oath none of the statutes impose upon her the exercise of discretion in any way they delegate no sovereign power to her", "holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment" ]
33
("[The use of the word 'shall in a statute usually is deemed to involve a mandatory connotation."); City of Colorado Springs v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 895 P.2d 1105, 1117-18 (Colo.App.1994) (finding that two provisions conflict when harmonization would effectively nullify one of them). Thus, to resolve this conflict, we consider the statute's legislative history to determine legislative intent. See Rowe v. People, 856 P.2d 486, 489 (Colo.1993) (looking to legislative history to determine legislative intent); People v. Carrillo, 2018 COA 3, 1 23, 297 P.3d 1028 (turning to "other statutory aids" when the plain text of statutes conflicts). b. Manifest Intent 120 The General Assembly's intent is "manifest" only when such intent is "clear and unmistakable." See Falls, 58 P.3d at 1142 (<HOLDING>). 121 In 2001, the General Assembly passed the
[ "holding that a general statute should not be interpreted as repealing a specific statute albsent clear and unmistakable legislative intent to the contrary", "recognizing the principle that gives precedence to the terms of the more specific statute where a general statute and a specific statute speak to the same concern", "holding that a phrase should be interpreted consistent with the context of the statute in which it is contained", "holding that specific statutes create exceptions to general statutes therefore if a provision of a specific statute is inconsistent with one in a general statute on the same subject the specific statute controls", "holding the general rule is that in the absence of clear legislative intent to the contrary a law affecting substantive rights liabilities and duties is presumed to apply prospectively" ]
00
exclusively reserved to old equity, excluding any participation by the creditors. Debtor counters that the new stock will be sold to the old shareholders “on account of” their contribution of “new value,” i.e., cash, and not “on account of” their old equity interest. Acknowledging that status as an old equity holder is a necessary condition to be eligible under the plan to buy the new stock, debtor contends that the absolute priority rule is not violated because old equity status is not sufficient to entitle the holder to shares of the new stock. Debtor’s analysis fails to recognize that the exclusive right to control the reorganized debtor is itself “property” under (B)(ii). See Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers, 485 U.S. 197, 207-08, 108 S.Ct. 963, 969, 99 L.Ed.2d 169, 180 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Kham & Nate’s Shoes No. 2, Inc. v. First Bank
[ "holding that when a spouse has given separate property to the marital community section 2640 preserves to the contributing spouse the equity value of his or her separate property contribution unless that retained interest is waived", "holding that there was no evidence of market value where owners testimony affirmatively showed that it was based on personal value", "holding that a retained equity interest is property even if it has no market value", "holding that congress has made it clear in amending section 522 that a lien will be deemed to impair an exemption even when there is no equity in the property if the sum of all the liens on the property and the hypothetical value of the exemption without liens exceeds the value of the debtors interest in the property in the absence of liens", "holding that the formula in section 522f2a creates equity for purposes of lien avoidance even if debtors otherwise have no equity in the property" ]
22
venture as contrasted with a governmental function.’ ” Hoffer v. State, 110 Wn.2d 415, 422, 755 P.2d 781 (1988) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1097 (5th ed. 1979)), adhered to on recons., 113 Wn.2d 148, 776 P.2d 963 (1989). 5 Mun. of Metro. Seattle, 118 Wn.2d at 645. 6 Id. at 646 (quoting City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 108 Wn.2d 679, 695, 743 P.2d 793 (1987)). 7 Id. 8 RCW 57.08.081(1). 9 These factors include the difference in cost to various customers, the location of customers within and without the district, the achievement of water conservation goals and discouragement of wasteful practices, and “any other matters which present a reasonable difference as a ground for distinction.” RCW 57-.08.081(2). 10 See City of Tacoma v. Welcker, 65 Wn.2d 677, 685, 399 P.2d 330 (1965) (<HOLDING>). 11 See Mun. of Metro. Seattle, 118 Wn.2d at
[ "recognizing that coverage could be triggered by need to prevent imminent contamination of groundwater", "recognizing that watershed isolation or acquisition serves to prevent and control water contamination", "holding that article x 2 of the california constitution dictates the basic principles defining water rights that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially", "recognizing that water retained within a watershed is susceptible to multiple use because all water uses are not consumptive uses", "holding authority to control limits duty to control" ]
11
Mexicans to vote, hold office, and sit upon juries, but it does not protect a defendant’s right to an impartial jury. See N.M. Const, art. VII, § 3. That provision does not correspond to the impartial jury provision of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution or to the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. See U.S. Const, amends. VI, XIV. Defendant did not argue before the district court that the rights of New Mexico jurors were being violated, and the district court did not make a ruling on that issue. Defendant did not cite N.M. Const, art. II, § 14, the provision that protects the right to an impartial jury. Therefore, he did not preserve any argument under the state constitution. See State v. Janzen, 2007-NMCA-134, ¶ 11, 142 N.M. 638, 168 P.3d 768 (<HOLDING>). {12} Similarly, while Defendant also cites
[ "holding a party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly", "holding that although this court affords broad discretion to the district court in determining the type of investigation necessary to determine juror bias the district court must provide the defendant a meaningful opportunity to prove the same", "holding that the appeals court may affirm the ruling of the district court on any basis which the record supports", "holding that this court does not review decisions of a district court not to depart downward unless the record reflects that the district court was not aware of or did not understand its discretion to make such a departure", "holding that preservation for review requires a fair ruling or decision by the district court in order to provide the lower court with an opportunity to correct any mistake give the opposing party an opportunity to demonstrate why the district court should rule in its favor and create a record which enables this court to make informed decisions" ]
44
to landslide, even though earth movement was the most immediate cause). We therefore conclude that this is a case of multiple causation. B. We must now determine whether the deterioration or the fungicide manufacturers’ failure to warn is the “proximate efficient cause” of the damage to Berry’s irrigation pipes. In Sabella, the California Supreme Court defined “proximate efficient cause” both as “the one that sets others in motion” and as “the predominating or moving efficient cause.” Sabella, 27 Cal.Rptr. at 695, 377 P.2d at 895; see Garvey, 257 Cal.Rptr. at 296, 770 P.2d at 708 (“Sabella defined ‘efficient proximate cause’ alternatively as the ‘one that sets others in motion’ and as ‘the predominating or moving efficient cause.’”) (citations omitted); Howell, 267 Cal.Rptr. at 716 (<HOLDING>); Brian Chuchua’s Jeep, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d at 445
[ "recognizing the existence of purely jurisdictional elements", "recognizing existence of two tests", "recognizing first two exceptions", "recognizing that the existence of an agency relationship is ordinarily a question of fact", "recognizing the existence of the special relationship" ]
11
claimant was injured while exiting an elevator in a parking garage which was not owned or maintained by her employer. However, the claimant’s employer instructed her to park in certain designated spaces which it leased in the garage. Because the employer leased the parking spaces from the garage operator and presumably could pressure the garage operator to keep the facility in a safe condition, Pierson held that there was “sufficient indicia of em ployer control to support the ... conclusion that the [employer] should be responsible for the effects of an injury to an employee which occurred in the garage.” 987 S.W.2d at 318. Since the claimant was utilizing a reasonable means to walk from her parking space to her employer when she fell, she zona, 142 Ariz. 501, 690 P.2d 802 (App.1984)(<HOLDING>); Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, §
[ "holding that the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees", "holding that injury in a parking lot did not occur on a covered situs", "holding that claimant was entitled to workers compensation because he was injured in a parking lot which was leased by his employer", "holding that an injury occurring in a parking lot which was leased but not controlled by an employer was compensable because the employer instructed its employees to park in that lot", "holding landowner had duty to provide security in parking lot to protect its invitees from criminal acts of third parties" ]
33
risked losing their last chance to defend themselves. Taking into consideration all of these factors, particularly the split-second nature of the decision, we conclude as a matter of law that Appellants had probable cause to believe that Waterman’s oncoming vehicle posed an immediate threat of serious physical harm at least to Officers Batton and Heisey. While reasonable officers would have recognized the possibility that Waterman intended only to accelerate by them rather than at them, they also — in the instant they had to decide — could have interpreted the acceleration in the face of their show of force as the initiation of a second attempt by Waterman to avoid capture by using his vehicle as a weapon against law enforcement personnel. See Garner, 471 U.S. at 11, 105 S.Ct. 1694 (<HOLDING>). Thus, although Appellants could have held
[ "holding that an officer cannot use deadly force unless a suspect poses an imminent threat of serious physical harm", "holding the use of deadly force is constitutionally permissible only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm either to the officer or to others", "holding that use of deadly force was justified against a suspect when officer forced to make a splitsecond decision relied on his reasonable belief that another officer had seen a gun in the suspects hands even though the suspects hands were handcuffed in front of him and the defendant officer never saw a weapon", "holding that an officer may use deadly force when a fleeing suspect threatens the officer with a weapon", "recognizing that deadly weapon finding may be made even when weapon used is unknown" ]
33
consumer. An explosion occurred and the distributors/manu facturers were sued. That court held that the distributors of bulk propane to a retailer had no independent duty to warn the ultimate consumer. Rather, the distributor had only a duty to insure that the retailer was knowledgeable regarding the dangers and was able to warn the ultimate buyers. Thus, a seller of bulk propane can delegate to the retailer its duty to warn the ultimate consumer. Furthermore, the bulk seller has no duty to warn the retailer of the dangers of a product if that retailer is already aware "through common knowledge or learning" of a specific hazard. Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v. Northern Propane Gas Co., 75 A.D.2d 55, 427 N.Y.S.2d 1009 (1980); Parkinson v. California Co., 255 F.2d 265 (10th Cir. 1958) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, respondent could rely on
[ "holding that a general contractor owed no duty to an employee of a subcontractor to warn of dangers of electrocution", "holding a manufacturer had no postsale duty to warn of dangers associated with an auger because numerous hodder factors were not present", "recognizing under illinois law that pharmaceutical manufacturer has duty to warn of any dangers associated with offlabel use of product if such dangers were reasonably known", "holding manufacture had no duty to warn of the dangers of smoking because the dangers of cigarette smoking have long been known to the community", "holding that manufacturer had no duty to warn its purchasers retailer and transporter of gas of dangers where those purchasers had operated a gas business for years were familiar with the trade journals and already knew the dangers" ]
44
Petitioner Jaswinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we grant the petition for review. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge’s order without discussion, thus we review the substance of the immigration judge’s order. Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.2003). The IJ erred when she found Singh’s testimony inconsistent and implausible, and therefore the record compels finding Singh’s testimony, credible. Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). First, the IJ erred when she found that
[ "holding that an adverse credibility determination is overturned only if each proffered reason for the determination fails", "holding when one identified ground for an adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of petitioners claim of persecution the court is bound to accept the ijs adverse credibility determination", "holding that an adverse credibility determination must be supported by a true inconsistency", "holding that an adverse credibility determination is sufficient to deny asylum", "holding that in the absence of an adverse credibility determination the court must accept petitioners testimony as true" ]
00
plea agreement between myself and the prosecutor.” The State argues this provision controls over the following handwritten notation on the plea form: “Defendant reserves his right to appeal the adverse ruling on defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence.” The State contends the handwritten notation, just above the preprinted waiver, was a pre-plea attempt to reserve his appeal rights, which did not survive the trial court’s acceptance of the plea bargain. There is no reporter’s record of the plea hearing, and the State does not explain why the following notation on the judgment was lined out: “Appeal waived, No permission for appeal granted.” On this record, we conclude appellant did not waive his right to appeal. See Alzarka v. State, 90 S.W.3d 321, 324 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (<HOLDING>). Cf. Freeman v. State, 913 S.W.2d 714, 716-17
[ "recognizing that exception to requirement of timely filing of notice of appeal exists in cases where defendant either was not told of right to appeal or was not furnished attorney to exercise those rights or was furnished attorney for that purpose who failed to perfect and complete appeal", "holding attorney lacked standing to challenge amount of attorney fees awarded plaintiffs not parties to the appeal", "holding that in determining whether the defendant has a prior conviction for burglary under the armed career criminal act the federal court may look only to the terms of the charging document the terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea was confirmed by the defendant or to some comparable judicial record of this information", "holding defendant did not waive appeal and that record in which trial judge district attorney and defendants attorney repeatedly made statements agreeing defendant would be permitted to appeal directly contradicted and rebutted any presumption raised by terms of boiler plate plea form defendant signed", "holding that trial counsel owes a criminal defendant a duty to file a notice of appeal regardless of whether the attorney was retained for the appeal or not" ]
33
offense; the maximum sentence is 10 years for each offense, which must run concurrently under Hale. By enhancing only one count and running it consecutively to the second count, appellant was sentenced to 12 years. This sentence exceeds the statutory maximum if both sentences had been enhanced under section 775.084 and run concurrently, or if neither had been enhanced and run consecutively. As such the appellant’s sentence violates Hale. Although appellant was not sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 5 years for the second offense, as explained in State v. Hill, 660 So.2d 1384 (Fla.1995), the requirement that sentences run consecutively is not limited to only the minimum mandatory portion of. a total sentence: The State argues that Hale and its predecessors, Palmer v. State A 1997) (<HOLDING>). Here appellant was sentenced as an habitual
[ "holding that a district court commits reversible error when it sentences a defendant to less than the statutory minimum where no exception to the mandatory minimum applies", "holding that even if the minimum mandatory exceeds the statutory maximum the court must impose the minimum mandatory", "holding fifteen year hfo mandatory minimum sentences on the three robbery convictions were required to run concurrently with the twentyfive year nonhfo mandatory minimum on the murder sentence", "holding hfo mandatory minimum sentence for robbery must run concurrently with sentences imposed for nonhfo first degree murder convictions", "holding that the fifteen year minimum sentence imposed under section 924e does not violate the eighth amendment" ]
22
by jury is a fundamental guaranty of the rights and liberties of the people. C Prudential that the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right means that the starting point of our analysis is a presumption against the waiver of this constitutional right. See, e.g., Aetna Ins. Co., 301 U.S. at 393, 57 S.Ct. at 811-12; In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 132 (giving right to trial by jury “same protections as other constitutional rights”); accord Ex parte Cupps, 782 So.2d 772, 775 (Ala.2000) (construing scope of contractual jury waiver strictly and narrowly “in deference to the constitutional guarantee of the right to a jury trial”); see also Note, 58 Baylor L.Rev. at 259. But see Lowe Enters. Residential Partners, L.P. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 118 Nev. 92, 40 P.3d 405, 410 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Despite the existence of a presumption
[ "holding that prospective waivers of claims are void as against public policy", "holding that the government was not bound by its waivers in three prior contracts", "holding that german law presumptively confers joint custody upon both parents until a court enters a contrary order", "holding without reference to supreme court case law to the contrary that in nevada contractual jury waivers are presumptively valid", "holding appellate waivers are enforceable if invoked by the government" ]
33
have consistently held that “[a] reasonable investigation following a justifiable traffic stop may include asking for the driver’s license and registration^]” Allegree, 175 F.3d at 650 (citing United States v. Ramos, 42 F.3d 1160, 1163 (8th Cir.1994)); see also United States v. Dexter, 165 F.3d 1120, 1126 (7th Cir.1999) (“Asking for a vehicle’s registration papers is clearly a legitimate way to verify a vehicle’s registration status.”). Detective Hall’s request for Clay-born’s registration papers and identification was reasonably related to confirming the vehicle’s registration status and explaining the lack of license plates. The subsequent searches were also justified because of the odor of marijuana, the arrest of Clayborn, and the impounding of the vehicle. Peltier, 217 F.3d at 610 (<HOLDING>); New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 462-63, 101
[ "holding that the odor of marijuana gave officers probable cause to believe members of a group possessed marijuana and therefore a search of each person present was proper", "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 because marijuana has a distinct smell the odor of marijuana alone can satisfy the probable cause requirement to search a vehicle or baggage", "holding that alcohol odor provided probable cause to search vehicle for open container and smell of burnt marijuana justified search of entire vehicle for drugs", "holding that the smell of marijuana gave the police probable cause to search the vehicle" ]
44
by a state officer and the subsequent participation in joint activity by the two to violate the civil rights of an individual will suffice. But these particular instances of state-individual joint undertakings are hardly exhaustive of the circumstances that will necessitate the application of the state actor doctrine. As the Supreme Court has stated repeatedly, what is necessary — in pure and simple terms — is that the private actor be “a willful participant in joint action with the State or its agents. Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action, are acting ‘under color’ of law for purposes of § 1983 actions.” Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27-28, 101 S.Ct. 183, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980); see also Jackson v. Pantazes, 810 F.2d 426, 429-30 (4th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). This principle, formulated in United States
[ "holding that where statutory remedies exist private employees do not have a private cause of action for violation of state constitutional rights", "holding police officer is a public official", "holding that texas democratic party was subject to the fourteenth amendment as a state actor and rejecting as a slight change in form defendants argument that because the democratic party was a private entity it was not a state actor", "recognizing affirmative duty of a police officer to prevent the violation of constitutional rights by another officer", "holding that bail bondsman was state actor where he searched a home for a felon with a police officer the court wrote that in cases where a private party and a public official act jointly to produce the constitutional violation both parts of the lugar test are simultaneously satisfied" ]
44
have adopted a presumption that the disclosure of a trade secret constitutes an irreparable harm that justifies an injunction. The presumption of irreparable harm is based upon the fact that the disclosure of a trade secret has the potential to. destroy the legal protections afforded to a trade secret if it becomes generally known. See 4 Rosmrt M. Mincrim & Eric E. Bensen, Minazrim on Traps § 15.02[1][c] (20183) (noting that "unprotected disclosure of a trade secret destroys the secret"). Because "of the difficulties involved in valuing the consequences of the destruction of a trade secret," id., some courts have adopted a presumption that the harm associated with an unauthorized disclosure is irreparable, see FMC Corp. v. Taiwan Tainan Giant Indus. Co., 730 F.2d 61, 63 (2d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Kendall Holdings, Ltd. v. Eden Cryogenics
[ "holding that the loss of money from a bank account does not constitute irreparable harm because that loss can be compensat ed by money damages", "recognizing that customer lists may be protectable trade secrets", "holding that the logs of trade secrets is usually considered an irreparable harm that cannot be measured in money damages alterations in original internal quotation marks omitted", "holding that supplier lists can be trade secrets under indianas uniform trade secrets act which uses the same definition of a trade secret as montana", "holding that the loss of trade secrets cannot be measured in money damages" ]
44
we proceed to the first step under Edwards-, whether SA KS’s communication with the appellee post-invocation of counsel — but prior - to the appellee’s subsequent waiver — constituted an interrogation. Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484, 101 S.Ct. 1880; Mil. R. Evid. 305(e)(1). Did SA KS’s Communication Constitute an Interrogation? For purposes of this Article 62, UCMJ, appeal, we review de novo the question of whether SA KS’s communication with the appellee post-invocation of counsel constituted an interrogation. Kosek, 41 M.J. at 63. The military judge ruled that SA KS’s request for consent to search did not constitute an interrogation. AE CXX at 14. We agree. A request to consent to search does not constitute an interrogation. See United States v. Burns, 33 M.J. 316, 320 (C.M.A.1991) (<HOLDING>) (citation and internal quotation marks
[ "holding that a consent to search is not an interrogation within the meaning of miranda ", "holding that persons knowledge of his right to refuse a consent to search is a factor but not a necessary prerequisite to demonstrating a voluntary consent", "holding that because consent is not a statement and a request for consent is not an interrogation giving consent to search is a neutral fact which has no tendency to show that the suspect is guilty of any crime", "holding under state constitution that validity of consent search requires knowledge of right to refuse consent", "holding there is no consent as a matter of law where the consent was given under coercion" ]
22
matter should be reopened because his first attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Kirlew also sought reconsideration of the BIA’s previous decision because he claimed that it “failed to articulate any legal standard, statutory, case law or regulation in support of its legal conclusion” (A.R. 7) (emphasis in original) and improperly discounted his claims of bias regarding the IJ. Because the BIA properly affirmed the IJ’s denial of recusal, we will affirm the BIA’s decision not to reopen the matter on that ground. Furthermore, while the record validates Kirlew’s claim that his Marijuana Conviction was subsequently vacated, he would still be unable to obtain Section 212(c) relief because of the Firearms Conviction. See Caroleo v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 158, 165 (3d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>) (citing Komarenko v. INS, 35 F.3d 432 (9th
[ "holding that section 212c relief is unavailable to a lawful permanent resident convicted of a firearms offense qualifying under 8 usc 1227a2c", "holding that adjustment of status was permitted even if deportable alien had entered the country as a lawful permanent resident", "holding that the relevant date is not when petitioner filed for 212c relief", "holding that a lawful permanent resident alien is entitled to seek relief under ina 212c", "holding that an alien is only lawfully admitted for permanent residence for purposes of the ina if his or her adjustment to lawful permanent resident complied with substantive legal requirements and that because the alien failed to show that she had complied with the relevant substantive legal requirements the ij correctly determined that she had not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence and was not entitled to 212c relief" ]
00
of a debt collector carved out by Section 1692a(6)(F)(ii) of the statute. As a result, the Court will not reach the additional bases for the Defendants’ argument pertaining to dismissal of the FDCPA claim. Section 1692a(6)(F)(iii) exempts from the definition of “debt collector” any person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another to the extent such activity ... concerns a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person. § 1692a(6)(F)(iii). Thus, the FDCPA is inapplicable to “collection efforts by those who obtained the right to payment on the debt before the debt was in default.” Franceschi, 22 F.Supp.2d at 253; See also Healy v. Jzanus Ltd., No. 02 CV 1061, 2006 VJL 898067, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2006) (<HOLDING>). In this case, Plaintiffs do not allege the
[ "holding that fdcpa applies to attorneys who regularly engage in consumer debt collection activities", "holding that an entity engaged in collection activity on a defaulted debt acquired from another is a debt collector under the fdcpa even though it may actually be owed the debt", "holding that where the defendant obtained a nondefaulted debt under the mistaken belief that the debt was in default and where the defendants subsequent collection activities were based on that mistaken belief the defendant was a debt collector for purposes of the fdcpa", "holding that the fdcpa did not apply to a collection agency retained by a hospital seeking medicaid reimbursement because the underlying debt was not in default even though the agency identified itself as a debtcollector", "holding that reporting a consumers debt to a creditreporting agency constitutes collection of the debt under 1692gb" ]
33
PER CURIAM. Donald Jackman, Jr. appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g) for the return of firearms and other property seized during a search of his residence. In February 2002, Jackman was convicted of possession of an unregistered destructive device and pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon. He was subsequently sentenced to 262 months in prison. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. In a separate proceeding, the government filed for forfeiture of several of Jackman’s firearms, a Cir.2000)(<HOLDING>). Although Jackman focuses primarily on
[ "holding that a convicted felon is not entitled to return of firearms or to have firearms held in trust by third party", "holding that a convicted felon is not entitled to have firearms returned held in trust or sold for his profit", "holding the defendant was a convicted felon within the purview of the federal statute prohibiting the receiving and possession of firearms by a convicted felon where the defendants prior conviction was based on an idaho state probated sentence", "holding that a convicted felon may sue a municipal government to recover the value of seized firearms that he owned", "holding that dual convictions of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon violated double jeopardy" ]
00
the piling of wires next to the staircases “arguably did not create an unreasonable risk of harm.” The trial court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment as to the elements of duty and breach. ¶ 12. We disagree. Given plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she did not see the wire in the stairs before she tripped, and defendant’s admissions that the area was poorly lit, covered in debris, and unsecured, a reasonable jury could conclude that either the danger was not open and obvious or that defendant should have foreseen the harm even if the danger was obvious. Thus, a jury could find that defendant had a duty to make the condition safe or warn plaintiff of the danger, and that he breached this duty. Cf. Menard, 174 Vt. at 479-80, 806 A.2d at 1005-07 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff also testified as to the elements
[ "holding that the evidence was legally insufficient to support an inference of constructive notice where plaintiff who slipped on an unknown substance could not say that the substance was placed there by employees of defendant that its presence was known to them or that it was there for an appreciable time before accident", "holding danger was not so obvious to invitee as to relieve defendant of liability as a matter of law", "holding that even if the industry and federal regulations evidenced an inherent danger and the defendant knew or should have realized that the device was or was likely to be dangerous for the use for which it was supplied there was a complete absence of evidence that the defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff or its employees would not realize the danger", "holding defendants not liable for negligence under either an invitee or licensee standard where danger of spiral staircase was obvious to plaintiff defendants had installed a guardrail area was welllit and there was no foreign substance on the stairs", "holding danger was so open and obvious to plaintiff that as a matter of law he knew or should have known of danger" ]
33
closely by a retaliatory action. Gordon v. N.Y. City Bd. of Educ., 232 F.3d 111, 117 (2d Cir.2000); Cifra v. GE, 252 F.3d 205, 217 (2d Cir.2001) (“[T]he causal connection needed for proof of a retaliation claim ‘can be established indirectly by showing that the protected activity was closely followed in time by the adverse action.’ ”) (quoting Reed v. A.W. Lawrence & Co., 95 F.3d 1170, 1178 (2d Cir.1996) (internal citation omitted)). Although the Second Circuit “has not drawn a bright line to define the outer limits beyond which a temporal relationship is too attenuated to establish a causal relationship between the e . Serv., 180 F.3d 426, 446-47 (2d Cir.1999), abrogated on other grounds by Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff alleges that soon after his
[ "holding that a prior north carolina conviction was for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year if any defendant charged with that crime could receive a sentence of more than one year", "holding something more than denial of receipt is required", "holding that a one month delay is acceptable", "holding abusive acts within one month of receipt of deposition notices may be retaliation for initiation of lawsuit more than one year earlier", "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" ]
33