NO HELPING HAND FOR DRUG ADDICTS: A HELPING HAND L.L.C. V. BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND, THE ADA, AND THE CASE FOR DISABLED DRUG ADDICTS

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "NO HELPING HAND FOR DRUG ADDICTS: A HELPING HAND L.L.C. V. BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND, THE ADA, AND THE CASE FOR DISABLED DRUG ADDICTS"

Transcription

1 VOYVODICH FINAL NO HELPING HAND FOR DRUG ADDICTS: A HELPING HAND L.L.C. V. BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND, THE ADA, AND THE CASE FOR DISABLED DRUG ADDICTS Kevin Voyvodich Abstract: Methadone is a narcotic medication that is used to treat opiate addiction. It has been an accepted type of treatment for over thirty years, and methadone maintenance programs are heavily regulated. Despite this, there is a large stigma attached to those who undergo the treatment. The programs have been stigmatized by a society that sees drug addiction as a weakness, even when those addicted seek treatment. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA ) has been one place that these programs have looked to for protection. Disability under the ADA is defined as an individual who is impaired and unable to participate in a major life activity. Drug abusers in treatment are considered impaired under the ADA, but there is some dispute over whether they can participate in major life activities. In A Helping Hand, L.L.C. v. Baltimore County, Maryland, the Fourth Circuit held that drug abusers were considered impaired but could not, as a matter of law, be considered unable to participate in major life activities. This Comment will take a detailed look at the Fourth Circuit s decision in A Helping Hand. It will argue, based on the intent of the ADA, that the proper holding would have been that those in methadone treatment are disabled as a matter of law. Candidate for Juris Doctor, New England School of Law (2010). B.A., History, cum laude, University of Tampa (2003). 207

2 VOYVODICH COMMENT 208 NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW [Vol. 44:207 INTRODUCTION Methadone is a narcotic medication that is used in treatment for addiction and withdrawal from opiates. 1 It has been in use for over thirty years. 2 The methadone treatment programs that are offered are among the most regulated medical programs in the country. 3 Despite the fact that Methadone Maintenance Treatment ( MMT ) is a sanctioned medical treatment for opiate addiction, there is still a large stigma attached to those receiving the treatment. 4 Within the realm of public opinion, these MMT program[s] [have] been stigmatized by the belief that methadone treatment merely substitutes one drug [addiction] for another. 5 The stigma of MMT has resulted in excessive regulation and policies that could be considered counterproductive in the treatment of drug addicts. 6 MMT Clinics have looked to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA ) for protection. 7 Title II of the ADA states that its purpose is to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. 8 In order to be disabled under the ADA, a person must be impaired and unable to participate in a major life activity. 9 Drug abusers are considered impaired under the ADA, but there is a dispute over the question of whether they can participate in major life activities. 10 In A Helping Hand, L.L.C. v. Baltimore County, Maryland, the Fourth Circuit held that drug abusers were considered impaired but could not, as a matter of law, be considered unable to participate in major life activities. 11 In this case, the County of Baltimore ( the County ) allegedly 1. ERIN STEINER BROEKHUYSEN, ONDCP DRUG POLICY INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE FACT SHEET: METHADONE (2000), pdf/ncj pdf. 2. Id. 3. Id. 4. Herman Joseph et al., Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT): A Review of Historical and Clinical Issues, 67 MOUNT SINAI J. MED. 347, 358 (2000). 5. Id. The stigma of methadone users has also led to their social ostracism and a constant fear of job loss if the fact that they are receiving treatment is discovered. Id. 6. Id. 7. See Ellen M. Weber, Bridging the Barriers: Public Health Strategies for Expanding Drug Treatment in Communities, 57 RUTGERS L. REV. 631, (2005) U.S.C (b)(1) (2006). 9. A Helping Hand, L.L.C. v. Balt. County, Md., 515 F.3d 356, (4th Cir. 2008). 10. Id. at Id. at 368 (stating that in certain instances, those in MMT could be perceived by the community as able to participate in the major life activity of employment despite any possible criminal tendencies).

3 VOYVODICH MACRO R6 2009] NO HELPING HAND FOR DRUG ADDICTS 209 changed city zoning restrictions so that a methadone clinic that had already fulfilled all zoning requirements could not open. 12 A Helping Hand methadone clinic ( the Clinic ) brought suit against the County claiming that the zoning changes violated Title II of the ADA. 13 The district court held that since the County perceived the Clinic s clients as impaired in major life activities, they were disabled under the ADA as a matter of law. 14 On appeal, the Fourth Circuit rejected this holding. 15 The Fourth Circuit reasoned that the ADA s question of whether the Clinic s clients had a disability was a question of fact for the jury. 16 The holding of the Fourth Circuit is not in line with the intent of the ADA 17 or the reality of the stigma attached to those in methadone treatment. 18 The appeals court should have agreed with the district court s opinion and held that the Clinic s clients were impaired in a major life activity as a matter of law. 19 The Fourth Circuit recognized that there was an argument to be made that drug abusers were disabled due to the County s bias towards the clients, but left it for a jury to decide whether that was the case. 20 Part I of this Comment will provide an overview of ADA law related to those in drug treatment and the progression of ADA case law leading up to the decision in A Helping Hand. Part II of this Comment will take a detailed look at the Fourth Circuit s decision in A Helping Hand. Part III will argue that the Fourth Circuit should have held that people undergoing MMT were disabled as a matter of law. There are three reasons the current holding is problematic: first, it does not allow for the clear cut guidelines of disability that the ADA envisions; 21 second, it overruled the overwhelming amount of evidence that the County had done everything in its power to keep the Clinic from opening, 22 and it additionally ignored another 12. Id. at Id. at 361. There was also a due process claim that will not be examined in this Comment. Id. 14. Id. at 365; see infra Part I.A (discussing what constitutes a disability under the ADA). 15. A Helping Hand, 515 F.3d at See id. 17. See ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No , 2(a)(1), 122 Stat (stating that the purpose of the ADA was to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities ). 18. See Joseph et al., supra note 4 (discussing the stigma of those in MMT programs). 19. See A Helping Hand, 515 F.3d at Id. at ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No , 2(a)(1), 122 Stat This Act may be cited as the ADA Amendments Act of Id See Joseph et al., supra note 4.

4 VOYVODICH COMMENT 210 NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW [Vol. 44:207 Circuit s decision that held that a MMT s clients were disabled under the ADA; 23 and third, it put to the jury the question of whether the clients of the Clinic were disabled, a question that Congress has stated should not demand extensive analysis in an ADA claim. 24 I. Background of Relevant Law A. The ADA Before the 2008 Amendments Act Title II of the ADA is the controlling law for issues of discrimination against persons with disabilities by public entities. 25 Title II of the ADA prohibits all public entities 26 from discriminating against those with disabilities. 27 The ADA defines a disability as: (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment. 28 The phrase being regarded as having such an impairment is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations ( C.F.R. ) stating that a person who is regarded as disabled either: (i)[h]as a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially limit major life activities but that is treated by a public entity as constituting such a limitation; (ii) [h]as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities only as a result of the attitudes of others toward such impairment; or (iii) [h]as none of the impairments defined in paragraph (1) of this definition but is treated by a public entity as having such an impairment. 29 This language has been interpreted to mean that a person need not be actually physically impaired; it must only be perceived by others that the person has a disability. 30 In the case of public entities it has been established that community views may be attributed to government bodies 23. See MX Group, Inc. v. City of Covington, 293 F.3d 326, 342 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding that a city s attempts to prevent an MMT clinic from opening were based on stereotypes and fear and violated the ADA ). 24. ADA Amendments Act of (b)(5). 25. See 42 U.S.C (2006) C.F.R (2008) (defining public entities as any state or local government for the purposes of the ADA). 27. Weber, supra note 7 (discussing what legal protections drug treatment clinics are given) U.S.C (2) (2006) C.F.R See A Helping Hand, L.L.C. v. Balt. County, Md., 515 F.3d 356, 367 (4th Cir. 2008).

5 VOYVODICH MACRO R6 2009] NO HELPING HAND FOR DRUG ADDICTS 211 when the government acts in response to these views. 31 The C.F.R. has recognized drug addiction as an impairment under the ADA. 32 Precedent interpreting the ADA has also held that drug addiction constitutes an impairment under the ADA. 33 Illustratively, the Sixth Circuit has held that methadone users are disabled. 34 B. Defining Substantially Limited in a Major Life Activity Having an impairment is only one part of the test to see if an individual is disabled under the ADA. 35 People being treated for drug addiction must also demonstrate that they are substantially limited in a major life activity because of other person s attitudes toward their addiction. 36 In Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, the Supreme Court stated that these terms need to be interpreted narrowly in order to create a demanding standard for disabilities. 37 The Supreme Court in Toyota declined to define a person with carpal tunnel syndrome as disabled under the ADA. 38 The Court stated that Congress intended to create a narrow definition of major life activities. 39 Another Supreme Court case, Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 40 also narrowed the broad scope of the ADA. 41 In Sutton, the Supreme Court held that in a Title II action the plaintiffs had to be impaired in their ability to work in a variety of jobs to be considered unable to participate in a major life activity. 42 The ADA does 31. Id. at C.F.R See Dovenmuehler v. Saint Cloud Hosp., 509 F.3d 435, 439 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 896 (9th Cir. 2002)); Reg l Econ. Cmty. Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown, 294 F.3d 35, 46 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. S. Mgmt. Corp., 955 F.2d 914, 919 & n.3 (4th Cir. 1992); H.R. REP. NO , pt. 2, at 51 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 303, 333 ( [P]hysical or mental impairment includes drug addiction[ ] and alcoholism. ). 34. See MX Group, Inc. v. City of Covington, 293 F.3d 326, 342 (6th Cir. 2002). The facts in MX Group also involved an attempt to keep a methadone clinic from opening. Id. at Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 195 (2002). 36. See 28 C.F.R See 534 U.S. at ; see infra Part I.C (discussing how this holding has recently been reversed by Congress). 38. Toyota, 534 U.S. at See id. at U.S. 471, 493 (1999) (holding that petitioners with severe vision problems were not disabled under the ADA). 41. ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No , 2(a)(4), 122 Stat Sutton, 527 U.S. at 493 (stating that the plaintiffs, employees of an airline, had to demonstrate the inability to function in a broad array of jobs rather than just the one in which they were currently working).

6 VOYVODICH COMMENT 212 NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW [Vol. 44:207 not specifically define the term major life activity, but the C.F.R. does offer some guidance. 43 The C.F.R. states that [t]he phrase major life activities means functions such as caring for one s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working. 44 The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that major life activities are those which are of central importance to daily life. 45 This interpretation of what constitutes a major life activity was further clarified by the Fourth Circuit s holding in Cline v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., which stated that individuals could be considered disabled based on the public s perception that they are disabled. 46 Further, the Sixth Circuit held in MX Group, Inc. v. City of Covington that this standard would apply to people in MMT treatment. 47 C. The 2008 ADA Amendments Act In September of 2008, the President signed into law an amendment to the ADA ( the Amendment ). 48 This Amendment sought to clarify the intent and scope of the ADA. 49 In the Amendment, Congress intended for the focus of ADA cases to shift from the question of whether an individual had an impairment constituting a disability, to an examination of whether the public entity discriminated against the party with the impairment. 50 Within the Amendment, Congress specifically pointed to the Toyota and Sutton cases as mistakenly creating too strict a standard for what constituted a disability. 51 The Amendment stated that an examination of whether an impairment was a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis. 52 This Amendment defined the phrase being regarded as having such an impairment to mean that even if an impairment failed to limit and was not perceived to limit a major life C.F.R (2008). 44. Id. The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 has adopted this definition. See ADA Amendments Act of (a). 45. Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 197 (2002) F.3d 294, 302 (4th Cir. 1998) (meaning that a plaintiff in an ADA case did not have to demonstrate any actual physical or mental disability) F.3d 326, 340 (6th Cir. 2002). The facts in MX Group also involved an attempt to keep a methadone clinic from opening. Id. at The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Notice Concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Amendments Act of 2008, gov/ada/amendments_notice.html (last visited Dec. 1, 2009). 49. ADA Amendments Act of (b)(1). 50. Id. 4(a). 51. Id. 2(a)(4)-(6). 52. Id. 2(b)(5).

7 VOYVODICH MACRO R6 2009] NO HELPING HAND FOR DRUG ADDICTS 213 activity, one could still bring a valid claim under the ADA if a public entity subjects a person to an action prohibited under this Act. 53 II. A Helping Hand, L.L.C. v. Baltimore County, Maryland In A Helping Hand, the Fourth Circuit examined under what circumstances those in drug treatment were considered disabled by the ADA. 54 The County appealed the district court s ruling arguing that the court erred in holding that the Clinic s clients were regarded as disabled under the ADA. 55 The district court held that on the facts of the case the clients of the Clinic were disabled as a matter of law. 56 The district court then went on to hold that the Clinic s clients had been discriminated against by the new zoning restrictions and that the County s zoning changes violated the ADA. 57 The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded on the issue of disability stating that it was for the jury to decide whether the clients of the Clinic were disabled under the ADA. 58 A. The Facts In September of 2001, Joe Prell explored the options of opening a methadone clinic in Baltimore County, Maryland. 59 Prell identified a building that had been previously used as a medical office as a possible location for the Clinic. 60 Prell then contacted the County Department of Permits and Development Management about obtaining any necessary permits for opening the Clinic at that location. 61 The County then notified Prell in writing that the methadone treatment center would constitute a permitted by right use under the zoning rules for that location but Prell may need to obtain a change of occupancy permit. 62 Prell followed up with the County about the change of occupancy permit and was informed 53. Id. 4(a) (defining the term regarded as having such an impairment ). This can be taken to mean that the focus of analysis in an ADA case is on the actions of the public entity, and not the perception of disability. See id F.3d 356, 367 (4th Cir. 2008). 55. Id. at See id. at 367. A judgment as a matter of law is granted when a jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue. FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a)(1). 57. A Helping Hand, 515 F.3d at 367. The text of the district court s decision is unavailable at this time. 58. See id. at 373 (questioning specifically whether the clients of the Clinic were impaired in a major life activity under the ADA). 59. Id. at Id. 61. Id. 62. Id.

8 VOYVODICH COMMENT 214 NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW [Vol. 44:207 that because the office was currently a medical office, no further paperwork would be needed. 63 After receiving this information, Prell entered into a lease for the location, incorporated the Clinic, and applied for all the relevant federal and state certifications and permits. 64 At this point, the community around the planned Clinic learned of it and began to protest its creation. 65 The protests included public demonstrations, letter writing campaigns, flyer distributions, and meetings in an attempt to prevent the Clinic from opening. 66 The protests became quite dramatic. 67 In one instance, the police were summoned to deal with protesters during an open house at the Clinic. 68 During this time, a city councilman took up the cause of the protesters. 69 Councilman Kevin Kamenetz worked with the protesters in developing a strategy to keep the Clinic from opening. 70 This collaboration culminated in a County Council Bill ( the Bill ) that created new zoning requirements for state-licensed medical clinics. 71 This new Bill would require these state-licensed medical clinics to participate in a public hearing process, obtain a special permit before being allowed to open, and be 750 feet from the nearest residence. 72 The County previously tried to keep another methadone clinic from opening by creating a new zoning ordinance. 73 In that case, a federal court held that the new zoning ordinance violated the ADA. 74 Because Kamenetz was aware that there was a potential ADA challenge to the Bill, its language was changed to use the general term state-licensed medical clinics to avoid specifically identifying methadone clinics. 75 During the time that the Bill was being crafted, Prell received all the necessary approvals from federal agencies including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 63. A Helping Hand, 515 F.3d at Id. at Id. at Id. 67. Id. 68. Id. 69. A Helping Hand, 515 F.3d at Id. 71. Id. 72. Id. 73. Smith Berch, Inc. v. Balt. County, 115 F. Supp. 2d 520, 522 (D. Md. 2000) (vacated on other grounds). 74. Id. at 523 (vacated on other grounds). This case held that Baltimore County violated the ADA by requiring a methadone clinic to participate in a special zoning hearing. See id. 75. A Helping Hand, 515 F.3d at 359.

9 VOYVODICH MACRO R6 2009] NO HELPING HAND FOR DRUG ADDICTS 215 Administration, and the Council on Accreditation. 76 The State of Maryland informed Prell that state officials declared that the Clinic was in compliance, and... should be receiving [its necessary state] license shortly, but after a week, the State contacted Prell and told him that due to several unfulfilled requirements, the County had not yet approved the Clinic s occupancy permit. 77 When Prell contacted the County, they informed him that he needed to submit a site plan and a parking plan before he would be approved for an occupancy permit. 78 Prell also noted that during this period of time he overheard a conversation in which a County official assured the head of a local community association that the Clinic would never be allowed to open. 79 Prell obtained a site plan and a parking plan and submitted them to the County. 80 The County came back with new requirements, which Prell promptly fulfilled. 81 By April 15, 2002, the Clinic had obtained everything necessary before opening, including a valid County permit. 82 The Bill passed on April 15, 2002 and was signed into law the following morning. 83 One significant aspect of the Bill was that it provided a six-month grace period for clinics that had been established shortly before the date that the Bill became effective. In a last minute change to the language of the Bill, the exception was changed to make it so only those clinics that were operating prior to the date that the Bill would take effect would fit into that exception. 84 The Clinic argued that it had opened on April 15th before the Bill became effective, but the County rejected this argument and began to assess fines against the Clinic in the amount of $200 for every day that it remained in operation. 85 At the same time that the County was assessing fines against the Clinic, the County granted a kidney dialysis center a variance and allowed it to open without fulfilling the requirements of the Bill Id. at Id. at Id. 79. Id. 80. Id. 81. A Helping Hand, 515 F.3d at 360. Prell was told by the County that he now needed to submit a plan depicting the utilities, including the plumbing and electrical operation of the building. Id. 82. Id. 83. Id. 84. Id. 85. Id. at Id. at 361.

10 VOYVODICH COMMENT 216 NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW [Vol. 44:207 B. Procedural History On August 2, 2002 the Clinic filed suit in federal district court claiming intentional discrimination, disparate impact, and a violation of due process. 87 The first two claims were based on Title II of the ADA. 88 The case was tried before a jury for ten days. 89 After the close of evidence, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law on the disparate impact claims and on one of the intentional discrimination claims. 90 The jury found for the Clinic and provided injunctive relief on their successful ADA claims. 91 The County appealed the decision on those ADA claims. 92 C. The Fourth Circuit s Reversal On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed the County s claim that the Clinic s clients were not disabled under the definition of the ADA. 93 The court recognized that drug addiction constituted an impairment under the ADA. 94 It then pointed out that [a]n ADA claimant must also demonstrate that drug addiction was regarded as substantially limit[ing] one or more major life activities or that drug addiction actually substantially limited one or more major life activities because of the attitudes of others towards the addiction. 95 The court reasoned that the Clinic s clients were stigmatized and regarded as criminals and generally undesirable neighbors and, further, that this perception accords with the stigma that often attaches to recovering drug addicts, but this did not mean that they were significantly impaired in their ability to work, learn, care for themselves, or interact with others A Helping Hand, 515 F.3d at 361. For the purposes of this Comment, the due process claim will not be examined. 88. Id. 89. Id. 90. Id. 91. Id. Concerning the intentional impact claim, the jury also found on behalf of the Clinic s clients. Id. 92. Id. 93. See A Helping Hand, 515 F.3d at Id. (citing Dovenmuehler v. Saint Cloud Hosp., 509 F.3d 435, 439 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 896 (9th Cir. 2002)); Reg l Econ. Cmty. Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown, 294 F.3d 35, 46 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. S. Mgmt. Corp., 955 F.2d 914, 919 & n.3 (4th Cir. 1992); H.R. REP. NO , pt. 2, at 51 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 303, 333 ( physical or mental impairment includes drug addiction[ ] and alcoholism )). 95. A Helping Hand, 515 F.3d at 367 (citing 28 C.F.R (2008)). 96. Id. at

11 VOYVODICH MACRO R6 2009] NO HELPING HAND FOR DRUG ADDICTS 217 The court then recognized that being regarded as a criminal and undesirable might hurt one s ability to gain employment based on other person s perception of that impairment, but it was an open question that the jury should have decided. 97 In holding on this issue, the court stated that even if the public regarded drug addicts as criminals, it was an open question whether they were impaired in major life activities, such as gaining employment. 98 By allowing the jury to decide if the Clinic s clients were impaired in a major life activity, the court allowed the jurors to make the initial decision of whether the clients of the Clinic were disabled. 99 This decision meant that the case would be remanded for further proceedings on whether the clients were perceived to be impaired in major life activities by members of the County s community. 100 The County argued that even if the clients were impaired under the ADA, their interactions with others were not a major life activity. 101 However, the court never had to reach a decision in that matter because a reasonable jury could have found that the community regarded the Clinic s clients as significantly impaired in one or more major life activities, [but] we cannot conclude that this is the only outcome a reasonable jury could have reached. 102 III. The Wrong Interpretation of the ADA A. Congress Has Clarified the Intent and Scope of the ADA in a Way Favorable to the Clinic. On September 25, 2008, the ADA Amendments Act was signed into law. 103 This Amendment clarifies the congressional intent of the ADA and should prompt the Fourth Circuit to reexamine its holding in A Helping Hand. 104 The Fourth Circuit focused on determining whether the Clinic s clients were perceived to be impaired by the community. 105 The recent addition to the ADA shifts the court s focus to the actions of the discriminating public entity, rather than to the community s perception of 97. Id. at Id. 99. See id Id A Helping Hand, 515 F.3d at 367. The court expressed skepticism that interacting with others is a major life activity under the ADA. Id Id. at The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, supra note See ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No , 2(a)(3), 122 Stat A Helping Hand, 515 F.3d at 368.

12 VOYVODICH COMMENT 218 NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW [Vol. 44:207 the clients. 106 By reversing the district court s decision on the community s perception of the clients in A Helping Hand, the court focused on the wrong issue. 107 The Amendment puts the focus of ADA cases on whether the public entity was violating ADA rules, rather than having an in-depth examination of whether the person is disabled. 108 This seems to favor the Clinic because the County, due to intense public pressure, did everything in its power to make sure the Clinic did not open. 109 This Amendment should force the Fourth Circuit s decision to be reconsidered in light of the fact that the focus should have been on the conduct of the County. 110 B. The District Court Was Correct. In its argument to the Fourth Circuit, the Clinic provided a large amount of evidence to prove the County had discriminated against the clients and that the community regarded the clients as undesirable. 111 The Clinic stated that the district court relied on two arguments in making its decision: 112 first, the clients were disabled due to the perception of the community, and second, the County had discriminated against the Clinic s clients through the zoning law changes. 113 The district court concluded that the clients were disabled and held that the clients had been discriminated against by the restrictive zoning regulations put in place by the County. 114 The Clinic, on appeal, pointed to the district court s reasoning, which cited Cline v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and MX Group, Inc. v. City of Covington to support the assertion that the clients were impaired in a major life 106. See ADA Amendments Act of (a) (stating that individuals have met the requirement of being regarded as having such an impairment if [they] establish[] that [they have] been subjected to an action prohibited under this Act because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether... the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity ) (emphasis added). Baltimore County is considered a public entity for the purposes of an ADA claim. A Helping Hand, 515 F.3d at See ADA Amendments Act of (a)(5) Id See A Helping Hand, 515 F.3d at See ADA Amendments Act of (a)(5) Brief of Appellee at 26-27, Balt. County, Md. v. A Helping Hand, L.L.C., No (4th Cir. May 30, 2007). This evidence included: community protests, unruly demonstrations, newspaper articles, and extensive communication between community leaders and the public regarding the public s outcry over the opening of the clinic. Id Id. at Id Id.

13 VOYVODICH MACRO R6 2009] NO HELPING HAND FOR DRUG ADDICTS 219 activity. 115 The district court applied this precedent to the Clinic s situation holding that the clients fell under ADA protection and were discriminated against by the County. 116 The district court s ruling was based on evidence that demonstrated public outcry from the community around the opening of the Clinic and the County s actions in response. 117 Following the district court s reasoning, the Fourth Circuit lacked any basis for requiring further examination of whether the community perceived the Clinic s clients as disabled. 118 The district court had correctly interpreted precedent by focusing on the actions of the County. 119 C. The Focus for a Jury Should Be the Actions of the Public Entity. Under the ADA, the focus of a claim is whether there was discrimination, not, in the eyes of a jury, whether the public perceives those in MMT as disabled. 120 Congress has stated in the recent Amendment to the ADA that whether an individual s impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis. 121 The district court appropriately examined whether the County had engaged in discriminatory acts against the Clinic after concluding that there was a large amount of evidence that demonstrated the clients were disabled under the ADA. 122 The Fourth Circuit should have accepted the holding of the district court and defined the Clinic s clients as disabled. 123 The initial finding of fact for the jurors should have been, and was before the reversal, the evidence of discrimination by the County, and not whether there were some in the County who did not consider the clients disabled. 124 By making this issue the central focus on appeal, the Fourth Circuit would have fulfilled the intent of Congress to minimize the analysis of whether the person bringing the action has an impairment that 115. Id. (citing Cline v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 294, 302 (4th Cir. 1998) and MX Group, Inc. v. City of Covington, 293 F.3d 326, 326 (6th Cir. 2002)) Id Brief of Appellee, supra note 111, at But see A Helping Hand, L.L.C. v. Balt. County, Md., 515 F.3d 356, 368 (4th Cir. 2008) See ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No , 2(a)(5), 122 Stat See id. 2(b)(5) Id. ( [T]he Supreme Court in the case of Toyota... has created an inappropriately high level of limitation necessary to obtain coverage under the ADA.... ) See Brief of Appellee, supra note 111, at See supra Part II.B See ADA Amendments Act of (b)(5).

14 VOYVODICH COMMENT 220 NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW [Vol. 44:207 constitutes a disability. 125 If the Fourth Circuit had made this decision, there likely would have been no other issue to reverse because the County had clearly made all the zoning changes to restrict the creation of the Clinic. 126 CONCLUSION In A Helping Hand, the Fourth Circuit was not convinced that the Clinic s clients were disabled as a matter of law. 127 The recent Amendment to the ADA states that the focus in ADA cases should be on the actions of the public entity accused of discrimination, not on whether a person is really disabled, or perceived to be disabled. There is a clear requirement for what constitutes a disability under the ADA. 128 The district court held that these requirements were fulfilled. 129 Therefore, the County s actions of changing the zoning and the community s strong protests about the Clinic should have been the focus of any jury decision of fact related to the case. 130 The intention of the ADA is to protect those with disabilities from discrimination by public entities. 131 The stigma 132 of those who are seeking treatment for their opiate addiction through MMT is one which can clearly be elevated to a disability. 133 It is important that there are clear standards that focus on the facts of the alleged discrimination, rather than haggling over which type of impairment constitutes a disability See supra Part I.C See A Helping Hand, L.L.C. v. Balt. County, Md., 515 F.3d 356, 368 (4th Cir. 2008). The court had also affirmed that the clients of the Clinic had standing to bring the ADA claim. Id Id See ADA Amendments Act of (a) Brief of Appellee, supra note 111, at See id. at ADA Amendments Act of (a)(1) Joseph et al., supra note MX Group, Inc. v. City of Covington, 293 F.3d 326, 342 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding that methadone users were disabled under the ADA) See Weber, supra note 7, at 745 ( [T]he adoption of legislative and regulatory standards based on federal nondiscrimination standards... will, in the long run, be more effective in establishing treatment.... ).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 09-60765 Document: 00511297029 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D November 17, 2010

More information

By Lawrence Peikes and Meghan D. Burns

By Lawrence Peikes and Meghan D. Burns By Lawrence Peikes and Meghan D. Burns On September 25, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) into law. The ADAAA, which took effect on

More information

Disability Discrimination and

Disability Discrimination and Disability Discrimination and Parker v. Metropolitan Life: Separate, but Equal? Barry W. Wall, MD In August 1997, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that disability insurance obtained as an

More information

5 Discrimination Based on Disability

5 Discrimination Based on Disability 5 Discrimination Based on Disability I. Overview 5.1 Darcie R. Brault Allyson A. Miller II. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) A. The Purpose of the ADA 5.2 B. Who Must Comply with the ADA

More information

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0927n.06. No. 13-5221 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0927n.06. No. 13-5221 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0927n.06 No. 13-5221 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Gaylus Bailey, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, Real Time Staffing Services, Inc., dba Select

More information

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1072. Yvette Ford, Appellant, vs. Minneapolis Public Schools, Respondent.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1072. Yvette Ford, Appellant, vs. Minneapolis Public Schools, Respondent. STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1072 Yvette Ford, Appellant, vs. Minneapolis Public Schools, Respondent. Filed December 15, 2014 Reversed and remanded Peterson, Judge Hennepin County District

More information

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 16a0059n.06. No. 15-5011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 16a0059n.06. No. 15-5011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 16a0059n.06 No. 15-5011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ELLEY A. LOPREATO, APRN, RN; SUSAN M. TAYLOR, RN v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, SELECT

More information

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 2605. September Term, 2002 HENRY L. PITTS STATE OF MARYLAND

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 2605. September Term, 2002 HENRY L. PITTS STATE OF MARYLAND REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2605 September Term, 2002 HENRY L. PITTS v. STATE OF MARYLAND Murphy, C.J., Getty, James S., (Retired, specially assigned), Moylan, Charles E.,

More information

LEGAL RIGHTS OF DISABLED PRISONERS

LEGAL RIGHTS OF DISABLED PRISONERS KNOW YOUR RIGHTS LEGAL RIGHTS OF DISABLED PRISONERS ACLU National Prison Project Important Note: The law is always evolving. If you have access to a prison law library, it is a good idea to confirm that

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA RULING ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA RULING ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TOMMIE E. WHEAT VERSUS JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 03-256-C-1 RULING ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL Plaintiff

More information

PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT Filed 9/25/96 PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-3409 GERALD T. CECIL, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ALFREDO MEJIA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D13-2248 ) CITIZENS

More information

PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 10-4068 CURTIS CORDERY,

PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 10-4068 CURTIS CORDERY, FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 30, 2011 PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 15-30322 Document: 00513241147 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT KENNETH L. MORGAN, JR., Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 10-1083 (1:09-cv-02702-JFM) STATE OF MARYLAND, Peter Franchot, Comptroller of Maryland,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 10-1083 (1:09-cv-02702-JFM) STATE OF MARYLAND, Peter Franchot, Comptroller of Maryland, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Filed: March 11, 2011 No. 10-1083 (1:09-cv-02702-JFM) In Re: DENISE A. CIOTTI, Debtor. ------------------------ STATE OF MARYLAND, Peter Franchot,

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals USCA Case #12-5117 Document #1394950 Filed: 09/18/2012 Page 1 of 5 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 12-5117 September Term, 2012 FILED ON: SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 CENTER

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 14 1449 BASHIR SHEIKH, Plaintiff Appellant, v. GRANT REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER, Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United States District

More information

Case 2:06-cv-13665-MOB-VMM Document 9 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 2:06-cv-13665-MOB-VMM Document 9 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Case 2:06-cv-13665-MOB-VMM Document 9 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: CARLA CRAIG-LIKELY, Debtor, / CARLA CRAIG-LIKELY, v.

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. Case Nos. 06-2262 and 06-2384 CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. Appellant No.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. Case Nos. 06-2262 and 06-2384 CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. Appellant No. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Case Nos. 06-2262 and 06-2384 NOT PRECEDENTIAL CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., Appellant No. 06-2262 v. REGSCAN, INC. CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION

More information

Whistle While You Work: The Gap in Whistleblower Protection Exposed by the Sixth Circuit

Whistle While You Work: The Gap in Whistleblower Protection Exposed by the Sixth Circuit Vol. 76] OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL FURTHERMORE 147 SIXTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Whistle While You Work: The Gap in Whistleblower Protection Exposed by the Sixth Circuit LIANE ROUSSEAU Commenting on Vander Boegh v.

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U. No. 1-14-1310 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U. No. 1-14-1310 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U FIRST DIVISION October 5, 2015 No. 1-14-1310 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 06-3489 United States of America, Appellee, v. Keith A. Jones, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Darren O Connor appeals the district court s order granting Angela Williams

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Darren O Connor appeals the district court s order granting Angela Williams DARREN O CONNOR, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit February 5, 2016 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellant, v.

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2297 Ronnie D. Gosney, * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas.

More information

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 12-3159 Lisa Gerhardt lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston; Universal Health Services, Inc.;

More information

Chapter 32. The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act

Chapter 32. The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act 32-100 Introduction Chapter 32 The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA ) provides: [N]o qualified individual with a disability

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 13-12014. D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cv-01368-JDW-TGW. versus

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 13-12014. D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cv-01368-JDW-TGW. versus Case: 13-12014 Date Filed: 07/01/2014 Page: 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TOUCAN PARTNERS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, NARCONON SPRING HILL, INC., a Florida Corporation, FOR

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Lorrie Logsdon sued her employer, Turbines, Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Lorrie Logsdon sued her employer, Turbines, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 20, 2010 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court LORRIE LOGSDON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. TURBINES,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Emily McCulley is an accomplished young woman suffering from a serious

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Emily McCulley is an accomplished young woman suffering from a serious EMILY MCCULLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT November 14, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. THE UNIVERSITY

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 REPLY TO OPPOSITIONS TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 REPLY TO OPPOSITIONS TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 13 2018 PATRICIA BANKS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION and FLORENCE GONZALES, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2010 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus

More information

F I L E D February 8, 2013

F I L E D February 8, 2013 Case: 12-20034 Document: 00512140008 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D February 8, 2013 Lyle

More information

Prepared by: Hon. Duncan W. Keir, Judge U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. and. Richard L. Wasserman, Esq.

Prepared by: Hon. Duncan W. Keir, Judge U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. and. Richard L. Wasserman, Esq. Memorandum Summarizing Procedures With Respect To Removal Of Bankruptcy-Related State Court Actions To The United States District Court And United States Bankruptcy Court In Maryland Prepared by: Hon.

More information

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST FEDERAL AGENCIES UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST FEDERAL AGENCIES UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST FEDERAL AGENCIES UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT The Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency administratively to assess civil penalties

More information

2:04-cv-72741-DPH-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 08/31/05 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 160 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

2:04-cv-72741-DPH-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 08/31/05 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 160 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION 2:04-cv-72741-DPH-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 08/31/05 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 160 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff,

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 16, 2001 Session

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 16, 2001 Session IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 16, 2001 Session STEVE EDWARD HOUSTON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Giles County No. 9082 Robert L. Jones,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. FRANK DONALD WILLIAMS; DANIEL LARRY; DANIEL LABATO; JOSEPH STONE; STEPHANIE SLATER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2013 WY 86

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2013 WY 86 NICHOLAS A. PICOZZI, Appellant (Respondent), IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2013 WY 86 APRIL TERM, A.D. 2013 July 16, 2013 v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS SAFETY AND COMPENSATION

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA M E M O R A N D U M A N D O R D E R

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA M E M O R A N D U M A N D O R D E R IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CLEOPATRA MCDOUGAL-SADDLER : CIVIL ACTION : vs. : : ALEXIS M. HERMAN, SECRETARY, : NO. 97-1908 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR : M

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 14-60770 Document: 00513129690 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT KINSALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee United States Court of Appeals

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 11-13737. D.C. Docket Nos. 8:10-cv-02360-VMC ; 8:90-bk-10016-PMG

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 11-13737. D.C. Docket Nos. 8:10-cv-02360-VMC ; 8:90-bk-10016-PMG Case: 11-13737 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-13737 [DO NOT PUBLISH] D.C. Docket Nos. 8:10-cv-02360-VMC ; 8:90-bk-10016-PMG In

More information

File: 39-2Public.Ed.doc Created on: 6/10/2010 12:41:00 PM Last Printed: 6/14/2010 1:53:00 PM PUBLIC EDUCATION

File: 39-2Public.Ed.doc Created on: 6/10/2010 12:41:00 PM Last Printed: 6/14/2010 1:53:00 PM PUBLIC EDUCATION PUBLIC EDUCATION Public Education: Adverse Personnel Actions Raven v. Manatee County School Board, 2009 WL 4282920 (Fla. 2d Dist. App. Dec. 2, 2009) Teachers and other public school employees have a statutory

More information

How To Decide A Dui 2Nd Offense In Kentucky

How To Decide A Dui 2Nd Offense In Kentucky RENDERED: JULY 8, 2011; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-000873-DG COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLANT ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA PLAINTIFF S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA PLAINTIFF S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION MICHAEL GLENN WHITE, et. al. Plaintiffs v. VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION; et. al., Defendants. Case No. 3:00CV386

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO COLORADO CRIMINAL DEFENSE BAR, a Colorado non-profit corporation; COLORADO CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM COALITION, a Colorado

More information

Are Employee Drug Tests Going Up in Smoke?

Are Employee Drug Tests Going Up in Smoke? Are Employee Drug Tests Going Up in Smoke? Robert D. Meyers Meghan K. McMahon On January 1, 2014, the nation s first marijuana retail stores opened in Colorado. This landmark event came approximately 14

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER AND CONSENT JUDGMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER AND CONSENT JUDGMENT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. Plaintiff, GRISHAM FARM PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant. Case No. 6:16-cv-03105-MDH

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals In the United States Court of Appeals No. 13-1186 For the Seventh Circuit IN RE: JAMES G. HERMAN, Debtor-Appellee. APPEAL OF: JOHN P. MILLER Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

More information

How To Prove That An Accident With An Old Car Is A Liability Insurance Violation

How To Prove That An Accident With An Old Car Is A Liability Insurance Violation UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 01-60902 Summary Calendar LONNA ANTHONY, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS FRANCES DeGRATE; ET AL, Defendants, ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY-SOUTHWEST, Defendant-Appellee.

More information

Case: 2:07-cv-00039-JCH Doc. #: 20 Filed: 10/03/07 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageid>

Case: 2:07-cv-00039-JCH Doc. #: 20 Filed: 10/03/07 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageid> Case: 2:07-cv-00039-JCH Doc. #: 20 Filed: 10/03/07 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION MARY DOWELL, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:07-CV-39

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 12, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-2622 Lower Tribunal No. 11-10021 Fernando Montes

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 09-60402 Document: 00511062860 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 25, 2010 Charles

More information

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 13-3381 Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corporation, doing business as Philadelphia Insurance Companies lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

More information

Case 1:07-cv-00514-GJQ Document 58 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 1:07-cv-00514-GJQ Document 58 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Case 1:07-cv-00514-GJQ Document 58 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION WALTER E. HARRIS v. Plaintiff, Case No. 1:07-CV-514 HON.

More information

8:09-cv-00341-LSC-FG3 Doc # 276 Filed: 07/19/13 Page 1 of 5 - Page ID # 3979 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

8:09-cv-00341-LSC-FG3 Doc # 276 Filed: 07/19/13 Page 1 of 5 - Page ID # 3979 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 8:09-cv-00341-LSC-FG3 Doc # 276 Filed: 07/19/13 Page 1 of 5 - Page ID # 3979 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA MICHAEL S. ARGENYI, Plaintiff, v. CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit WILLIAM MOSHER; LYNN MOSHER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 19, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk

More information

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 11-2390

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 11-2390 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2390 MICHAEL C. WORSHAM, Plaintiff Appellant, v. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United

More information

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 1043. September Term, 2006 ATRELLE T. THOMAS GIANT FOOD, LLC, ET AL.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 1043. September Term, 2006 ATRELLE T. THOMAS GIANT FOOD, LLC, ET AL. REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1043 September Term, 2006 ATRELLE T. THOMAS v. GIANT FOOD, LLC, ET AL. Eyler, Deborah S., Woodward, McAuliffe, John F. (Ret'd, Specially Assigned),

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA, IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. CF-2008-1601 Judge William Kellough RODNEY EUGENE DORSEY, Defendant. BRIEF CONCERNING REQUEST FOR

More information

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 26th day of February, 2008, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2007-CC-1091 FREY PLUMBING

More information

How To Get A $1.5 Multiplier On Attorney'S Fees In Florida

How To Get A $1.5 Multiplier On Attorney'S Fees In Florida Reprinted with permission from the Florida Law Weekly: [ 35 Fla. L. Weekly D1438a Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Attorney's fees -- Paralegal fees -- Multiplier -- Circuit court did not depart

More information

Case 1:07-cv-01949-LTB Document 17 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 1 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-01949-LTB Document 17 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 1 of 6 Case 1:07-cv-01949-LTB Document 17 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 1 of 6 Civil Case No. 07-cv-01949-LTB IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE UNITED STATES OF

More information

Caregiver Discrimination. by Patti J. Skoglund

Caregiver Discrimination. by Patti J. Skoglund : by Patti J. Skoglund pskoglund@jlolaw.com 8519 Eagle Point Boulevard, Suite 100 Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042-8624 (651) 290-6500 EMPLOYMENT LAW WHAT S NEW? I. FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY DISCRIMINATION FRD New

More information

Krauser, C.J. Zarnoch, Reed,

Krauser, C.J. Zarnoch, Reed, UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1027 September Term, 2013 RONALD G. CHAMBERS v. COLIN M. BULEY Krauser, C.J. Zarnoch, Reed, JJ. Opinion by Zarnoch, J. Filed: December 29, 2014

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 13-12276 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 13-12276 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. Case: 13-12276 Date Filed: 01/02/2014 Page: 1 of 9 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-12276 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 5:10-cv-01537-AKK MELVIN BRADLEY,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 13-1006 IN RE ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PER CURIAM Rafael Zuniga sued San Diego Tortilla (SDT) for personal injuries and then added

More information

T.C. Memo. 2014-106 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. WHISTLEBLOWER 10949-13W, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

T.C. Memo. 2014-106 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. WHISTLEBLOWER 10949-13W, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent T.C. Memo. 2014-106 UNITED STATES TAX COURT WHISTLEBLOWER 10949-13W, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 10949-13W. Filed June 4, 2014. Sealed, for petitioner. Sealed,

More information

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS) Sober Houses/Recovery Residences

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS) Sober Houses/Recovery Residences I. What is a Sober House? Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS) Sober Houses/Recovery Residences A Sober House is a group home for persons in recovery from drug/alcohol abuse. It is intended to be the last

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JOYCE FULLINGTON PLAINTIFF v. No. 4:10CV00236 JLH PLIVA, INC., formerly known as Pliva USA, Inc.; and MUTUAL PHARMACEUTICAL

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: MARCH 14, 2008; 2:00 P.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2007-CA-001304-MR DONALD T. CHRISTY APPELLANT v. APPEAL FROM MASON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE STOCKTON

More information

U. S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION -------------------------------------------------------------------------x

U. S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION -------------------------------------------------------------------------x U. S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION -------------------------------------------------------------------------x Ms. Betzaida Cruz Cardona, Claimant -against- CHARGE TVI, Inc. (d/b/a Savers) and

More information

LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE FOR MAY 2016 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONFERENCE. Timothy L. Davis. Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP www.bwslaw.

LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE FOR MAY 2016 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONFERENCE. Timothy L. Davis. Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP www.bwslaw. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE FOR MAY 2016 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONFERENCE Timothy L. Davis Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP www.bwslaw.com OVERVIEW FOR 2016 UPDATE Labor Law Court Decisions Employment

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION THOMAS J. KLUTHO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:06CV1212 CDP ) HOME LOAN CENTER, INC, ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

More information

SECOND CIRCUIT REVIEW INSURANCE REGULATIONS UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT MARTIN FLUMENBAUM - BRAD S. KARP

SECOND CIRCUIT REVIEW INSURANCE REGULATIONS UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT MARTIN FLUMENBAUM - BRAD S. KARP P A U L, W E I S S, R I F K I N D, W H A R T O N & G A R R I S O N SECOND CIRCUIT REVIEW INSURANCE REGULATIONS UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT MARTIN FLUMENBAUM - BRAD S. KARP PUBLISHED IN THE

More information

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sandra Lynn Reno, Misc. Docket AG No. 5, September Term, 2013

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sandra Lynn Reno, Misc. Docket AG No. 5, September Term, 2013 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sandra Lynn Reno, Misc. Docket AG No. 5, September Term, 2013 ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE MARYLAND LAWYERS RULE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 8.4 Court of Appeals denied

More information

* IN THE. * CASE NO.: 24-C-04-007323 Defendant * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM

* IN THE. * CASE NO.: 24-C-04-007323 Defendant * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM CAROL PRICE IN THE Plaintiff CIRCUIT COURT vs. FOR SINAI HOSPITAL OF BALTIMORE, INC. BALTIMORE CITY CASE NO.: 24-C-04-007323 Defendant MEMORANDUM This case comes before this Court on a Petition for Court

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HOWARD MEDICAL, INC. t/a CIVIL ACTION ADVANCE AMBULANCE SERVICE, NO. 00-5977 Plaintiff, v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, t/a TEMPLE

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-3829WA Associated Insurance Management Corporation; Colonia Insurance Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Arkansas General Agency, Inc.; Defendant-Appellant,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEAN SMITH, on behalf of himself and Others similarly situated, v. Michael Harrison, Esquire, Plaintiff, Defendant. OPINION Civ. No. 07-4255 (WHW) Walls,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DONALD LYLE STRATTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JULIE BUCK, in her individual capacity; DALE BROWN, in his individual capacity; JOHN DOE,

More information

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-2106. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-2106. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2106 CHARLES A. BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee.

More information

Case 1:09-cv-02007-ELH Document 46 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, NORTHERN DIVISION

Case 1:09-cv-02007-ELH Document 46 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, NORTHERN DIVISION Case 1:09-cv-02007-ELH Document 46 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, NORTHERN DIVISION JOETTE PAULONE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL NO.: WDQ-09-2007 CITY

More information

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 13-CV-1074. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CAB-1922-12)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 13-CV-1074. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CAB-1922-12) Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

More information

No. 3 09 0033 THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009

No. 3 09 0033 THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009 No. 3 09 0033 Filed December 16, 2009 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009 KEPPLE AND COMPANY, INC., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court an Illinois Corporation, ) of the 10th Judicial

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 15-10192 Document: 00513409349 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. DARILYN JOHNSON, v. Plaintiff Appellant,

More information

Defensive Strategies in False Marking Suits After Stauffer and Pequignot

Defensive Strategies in False Marking Suits After Stauffer and Pequignot Defensive Strategies in False Marking Suits After Stauffer and Pequignot Contributed by Angie M. Hankins, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP Many companies inadvertently mark their products with expired patents.

More information

2013 IL App (1st) 120546-U. No. 1-12-0546 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2013 IL App (1st) 120546-U. No. 1-12-0546 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2013 IL App (1st) 120546-U Third Division March 13, 2013 No. 1-12-0546 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U Order

More information

Case 2:13-cv-00926-CW-BCW Document 53 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

Case 2:13-cv-00926-CW-BCW Document 53 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION Case 2:13-cv-00926-CW-BCW Document 53 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION VISION SECURITY, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, ROB HARRIS,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. The memorandum disposition filed on May 19, 2016, is hereby amended.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. The memorandum disposition filed on May 19, 2016, is hereby amended. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JUN 30 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation, v. Plaintiff - Appellant,

More information

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-23-2008 Motise v. Parrish Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1881 Follow this and additional

More information

FILED December 18, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL

FILED December 18, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 150340-U NO. 4-15-0340

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JEFF SALSIEDER, v. Plaintiff, OPINION

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 133050-U. No. 1-13-3050 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 133050-U. No. 1-13-3050 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 133050-U FIFTH DIVISION September 30, 2015 No. 1-13-3050 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JOAN FALLOWS KLUGE, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. L-10-00022 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Joan Fallows

More information

No. 1-15-0941 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

No. 1-15-0941 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 150941-U SIXTH DIVISION December 18, 2015 No. 1-15-0941 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL SARAVIA V. HORMEL FOODS NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED

More information

ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. SLATER, SEC- RETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, et al.

ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. SLATER, SEC- RETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, et al. 216 OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. SLATER, SEC- RETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, et al. on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-16291 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-61429-RSR.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-16291 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-61429-RSR. Case: 12-16291 Date Filed: 06/17/2013 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-16291 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-61429-RSR MICHAEL

More information