UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
|
|
- Everett Perkins
- 7 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 85 M.S.P.R. 198 MATHEW G. GENSBURG, Appellant, DOCKET NUMBER SF B-1 v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Agency. DATE: February 23, 2000 Charles A. Bonner, Esquire, Sausalito, California, and Michael J. Kinane, Esquire, Oakland, California, for the appellant. Angela Benzo Norman, Esquire, Oakland, California, for the agency. BEFORE Ben L. Erdreich, Chairman Beth S. Slavet, Vice Chair Susanne T. Marshall, Member OPINION AND ORDER 1 The appellant petitions for review of the initial decision issued on July 7, 1999, that denied the motion for attorney fees filed by the appellant's nonattorney representative, granted the motion for attorney fees filed by the appellant's attorney representatives, and awarded fees to the appellant's attorney representatives in the amount of $70, The appellant's non-attorney representative has filed a motion to intervene. For the reasons discussed below, we find that the petition does not meet the requirements for review at 5 C.F.R , and we therefore DENY it. We also DENY the motion to intervene.
2 2 We REOPEN this case on our own motion under 5 C.F.R , however, and AFFIRM the initial decision as MODIFIED by this Opinion and Order. BACKGROUND 2 The agency removed the appellant from the WS-10 position of Maintenance Mechanic Supervisor for unauthorized possession and removal of government property, diesel fuel and six half-sheets of plywood, and unauthorized use of a government vehicle. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6, Subtabs 4b, 4j. The appellant petitioned for appeal and requested a hearing. IAF, Tab 1. Prior to the hearing, the appellant had a non-attorney representative; during the hearing and thereafter, the appellant had attorney representatives. Initial Attorney Fee File (IAFF), Tab, Tab 9. Based on the evidence of record, including the hearing, the administrative judge found that the agency did not prove the charges of unauthorized possession and removal of diesel fuel and unauthorized use of a government vehicle. IAF2, 1 Tab 26 (Initial Decision (ID) at 10-13). The administrative judge found, however, that the agency proved the charge of unauthorized possession and removal of the plywood. Id. (ID at 13-14). The administrative judge found that a reasonable penalty for the sustained charge was a 90-day suspension. Id. (ID at 17-18). The initial decision became the final decision of the Board when neither party petitioned for review. 5 C.F.R Subsequently, the appellant filed a motion for attorney fees in the amount of $212,220. Initial Attorney Fee File (IAFF), Tab 1. The agency filed a response in opposition to the motion. IAFF, Tab 8. The administrative judge found that the appellant failed to show that fees were warranted in the interest of justice and denied the motion. IAFF, Tab 11. The appellant petitioned for review. Fee 1 The administrative judge dismissed the petition for appeal without prejudice to refiling to allow the parties to complete discovery. IAF, Tab 11. The appellant timely refiled his appeal. The record in the refiled appeal is designated as IAF2.
3 3 Petition for Review File (FRF), Tab 1. The Board granted the petition and found that fees were warranted in the interest of justice on the ground that the agency's action was clearly without merit. Gensburg v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 80 M.S.P.R. 187, (1998). The Board remanded the appeal to the regional office for a determination of the reasonableness of the fees requested. Id. 4 On remand, the administrative judge carefully assessed the appellant's motion. Remand Initial Attorney Fee File (RIAFF), Tab 16. She denied the appellant's request for $49,500 in fees for the consulting service of Linda L. Harper, his nonattorney representative, because she was not an attorney, no attorney-client relationship existed between her and the appellant, and she was not under the supervision of the appellant's attorneys. RIAFF, Tab 16 (Remand Fee Addendum Initial Decision (RFAID) at 3-6). She also denied the appellant's request for $1500 in fees to his criminal attorney because an attorney is not entitled to fees incurred as a result of a criminal investigation. Id. (RFAID at 6). Additionally, she found, based on the fee agreement between the appellant and his attorneys, that the customary billing rate for the appellant's two attorneys, Charles A. Bonner, Esquire, and Michael J. Kinane, Esquire, was $150 per hour. Id. (RFAID at 6-21). She found that the hours reasonably devoted to the case were for Bonner and for Kinane and that costs totaled $ Id. Thus, she awarded fees in the amount of $70, Id. (RFAID at 21). 5 The appellant has now filed a petition for review. Remand Fee Petition for Review File (RFRF), Tab 4. Harper has filed a motion to intervene. RFRF, Tab 1. The agency has filed responses in opposition to the petition for review and the motion to intervene. RFRF, Tabs 6, 7. ANALYSIS The appellant did not show that the administrative judge was biased. 6 In his petition, the appellant asserts that the administrative judge was biased in her conduct of the attorney fee proceedings. In support of this assertion, he
4 4 alleges that, during proceedings below, she stated that the appellant should not be entitled to fees, that his attorneys were abusing the system, that private counsel were overpaid, that the appellant would not get interest on any fees, and that the appellant should accept the agency's settlement offer. In making a claim of bias or prejudice against an administrative judge, a party must overcome the presumption of honesty and integrity that accompanies administrative adjudicators. Oliver v. Department of Transportation, 1 M.S.P.R. 382, 386 (1980). The party must show that the bias constitutes extrajudicial conduct rather than conduct arising in the administrative proceedings before him. Ali v. Department of the Army, 50 M.S.P.R. 563, 568 (1991). The fact that an administrative judge ruled against a party is not sufficient evidence to show bias. Rolon v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 53 M.S.P.R. 362, (1992). 7 Here, the appellant simply alleges that the administrative judge acted improperly, without pointing to any evidence in the record or submitting an affidavit or any other evidence to support his own unsworn statements. RFRF, Tab 1. This does not suffice to rebut the presumption of the administrative judge's honesty and integrity. Lee v. U.S. Postal Service, 48 M.S.P.R. 274, 282 (1991); Oliver, 1 M.S.P.R. at 386. In addition, neither the appellant nor his attorneys raised any objection on the record below to the administrative judge's alleged conduct of the proceedings. A claim of bias must be raised as soon as practicable after a party has reasonable cause to believe that grounds exist for an administrative judge's disqualification on such basis. Lee, 48 M.S.P.R. at A party cannot wait until after the adjudication is complete to object for the first time. Id. 8 Moreover, there is no showing that the administrative judge had prejudged the attorney fee motion. The administrative judge's comment that the appellant should accept the agency's settlement offer was made in her role as adjudicator; it was not extrajudicial conduct. It constituted simply her honest appraisal of the appellant's likelihood of success if he elected to pursue adjudication of his fee
5 5 motion. See Cranfield v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 44 M.S.P.R. 384, 388 (1990) (the administrative judge's comments to the parties reflecting the weaknesses of their cases did not reflect any prejudgment or preconceived notions as to the appeal). 9 To the extent that the administrative judge commented on the propriety of the Board's decision finding that fees were warranted in the interest of justice and on the merits of the appellant's fee request, the appellant has not shown that such comments establish bias. See Lee, 48 M.S.P.R. at Even assuming arguendo that the administrative judge commented on her original decision and the Board's interpretation thereof, such comments do not establish that she was biased. Cleavenger v. Department of the Air Force, 29 M.S.P.R. 228, 230 (1985); Wilson v. Department of Agriculture, 28 M.S.P.R. 472, 476 (1985). The appellant did not show that the administrative judge erred in finding that his case was routine. 10 The appellant disputes the administrative judge's finding that his case was not complex. In support of his assertion that his case was complex, he states that the charges against him followed a major investigation by the agency, and the case has been prosecuted by two agency attorneys, with reliance on other agency attorneys. The extent of the agency's effort in the removal action does not necessarily support a conclusion that the case was complex. 11 Complex issues of discrimination may cause a case to be complex. Beall v. Department of the Interior, 68 M.S.P.R. 231, 234 (1995). Here, although the appellant alleged that the agency's action was discriminatory, he presented no evidence to substantiate his claim. Thus, the appellant's allegations of discrimination provide no basis here to find that the case was complex. Id. Further, the fact that the appellant was a supervisor provides no basis to find that the case was particularly complex. Koenig v. Department of the Air Force, 55 M.S.P.R. 155, 160 (1992).
6 6 12 The administrative judge who heard the appeal on the merits is in the best position to determine its complexity at the attorney fee stage. Beall, 68 M.S.P.R. at 234. As the administrative judge noted, this case involved a 1 1/2 day hearing, seven witnesses, no prehearing or post hearing briefs, no novel issues of law in the charges of unauthorized possession and removal of government property, and unauthorized use of a government vehicle, and no evidence on the appellant's allegations of discrimination. Under these circumstances, we agree with the administrative judge that these facts, without more, reveal a routine, noncomplex case. The appellant has not shown the existence of additional facts that would support a determination that this is a complex case. Thus, the appellant has not established error in the administrative judge's finding that this case was routine. In any event, even if this case were not routine because of the effort expended by the agency on it, the appellant has not shown that the agency's effort required his attorneys to expend time on the case that entitled him to fees in addition to those awarded by the administrative judge. The administrative judge correctly awarded the appellant's attorneys an hourly rate based on the fee agreement with the appellant. 13 In his petition, the appellant also requests the Board to award him the full amount of fees that he requested below. To the extent that this request constitutes an assertion that the administrative judge erred in finding that the attorneys' hourly rate was $150, his assertion is without merit. Where it is agreed that a specific fee be paid to attorneys for legal services rendered on behalf of an appellant in a Board case, the Board presumes that the amount agreed upon represents the maximum reasonable fee which may be awarded. O'Donnell v. Department of the Interior, 2 M.S.P.R. 445, 455 (1980), overruled in part on other grounds, Koch v. Department of Commerce, 19 M.S.P.R. 219 (1984). This presumption, however, is rebuttable by convincing evidence that the agreed-upon rate was not based on marketplace considerations and that the attorneys' rate for
7 7 similar work was customarily higher, or by showing that he had agreed to such a rate only because of the employee's reduced ability to pay and that his customary fee for similar work was significantly higher. Andrus v. General Services Administration, 56 M.S.P.R. 681, (1993); Ishikawa v. Department of Labor, 26 M.S.P.R. 258, 260 (1985); Gerlach v. Federal Trade Commission, 20 M.S.P.R. 60, 63 n.4 (1984). The appellant here, however, presented no evidence to rebut the presumption that the fee agreement determined the maximum hourly rate. Thus, the administrative judge properly found that the hourly rate for both attorneys was that specified in the fee agreement, i.e., $150 per hour. IAFF, Tab 3 (Exhibit B). The appellant did not show that the administrative judge erred in reducing the hours claimed in the fee motion. 14 The appellant asserts generally that the administrative judge erred in reducing hours. The administrative judge who decided the appeal is in the best position to evaluate the documentation submitted by an appellant's attorneys in determining the reasonableness of the attorney fees requested and the quality of legal representation provided by them. Evans v. Office of Personnel Management, 67 M.S.P.R. 357, 360 (1995). Here, the administrative judge carefully scrutinized the hours and billing rates claimed by the appellant's attorneys in the motion for fees. She properly reduced hours for duplication and padding, and imposed fair standards of efficiency and economy of time. RIAFF, Tab 16 (RFAID at 11-20); Kling v. Department of Justice, 2 M.S.P.R. 464, (1980). Further, she gave concise and specific reasons for doing so, identifying such hours and articulating reasons for their elimination. Id. She properly reduced the appellant's attorneys' hours by subtracting the hours spent performing clerical and paralegal tasks, such as mailing, faxing, and billing, because counsel failed to establish the community billing practice for non-legal work. White v. Department of the Treasury, 45 M.S.P.R. 475, 482 (1990). She
8 8 also properly reduced their hours by subtracting the hours spent on unemployment and equal employment opportunity matters because counsel failed to show that such matters were related to the appellant's success in this appeal, Manley v. Department of the Air Force, 67 M.S.P.R. 467, 472 (1995), and she properly subtracted the hours spent on reviewing the appellant's physician's evaluation of the appellant's medical condition and discussions with the appellant's criminal attorney because these matters were irrelevant to this appeal, Richards v. Department of Justice, 67 M.S.P.R. 46, 49 (1995); White, 45 M.S.P.R. at 482. Additionally, she properly reduced the appellant's attorneys' hours by subtracting the hours that counsel spent on a petition for enforcement in which the appellant did not prevail, Lizut v. Department of the Army, 42 M.S.P.R. 3, 8 (1989), by subtracting the hours that were insufficiently documented, Social Security Administration v. Balaban, 33 M.S.P.R. 309, 324 (1987), and by subtracting hours that duplicated other counsel's work, Casali v. Department of the Treasury, 81 M.S.P.R. 347, 354 (1999). Finally, she properly reduced the hours claimed for performing certain tasks, such as reviewing a standard Board order and the order summarizing the prehearing conference, when the hours claimed were on their face unreasonable and excessive. Naekel v. Department of Transportation, 32 M.S.P.R. 497, 502 (1987), modified on other grounds by 845 F.2d 976 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The appellant's contention that these hours were improperly "cut," without specification of which hours and why they allegedly should be compensated, does not raise a serious question as to the numerous specific findings of the administrative judge warranting review of the entire record. RIAFF, Tab 16 (RFAID at 11-20). See Downes v. Department of Transportation, 36 M.S.P.R. 207, 211, aff'd, 865 F.2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Table); Weaver v. Department of the Navy, 2 M.S.P.R. 129, (1980), review denied, 669 F.2d 613 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). 15 In addition to his general allegation that the administrative judge erred in reducing hours, the appellant specifies that the administrative judge erred in
9 9 reducing as duplicative hours for multiple viewings of audio and video tapes made by the agency during the investigation of the appellant and in cutting the 2 hours that Bonner and Kinane discussed Kinane's deposition of an agency witness, Maureen Humphreys. The administrative judge reduced the time Bonner billed for reviewing the audio and video tapes from 34.7 hours to 18 hours because Bonner had reviewed the audio and video tapes twice and had reviewed the transcript of the audio tape. RIAFF, Tab 16 (RFAID at 13-14). The administrative judge's award reduced the hours requested for reviewing the audio and video tapes by less than half. Id. This allowed full review once and rereview of significant parts. The appellant has not shown that the administrative judge's action failed to impose fair standards of efficiency and economy of time. The administrative judge allowed the 2.5 hours that Bonner billed for review of the text of Humphreys' deposition. RIAFF, Tab 16 (RFID at 17, n.23). This allowed both attorneys to be apprised of the content of the deposition. The appellant did not show that the administrative judge erroneously cut the 2-hour telephone conference regarding the deposition as duplicative. The administrative judge properly did not award fees to the appellant's nonattorney representative. 16 The appellant asserts that the administrative judge erred in not awarding the fee for Harper's time representing the appellant before the Board up to the hearing, when the appellant hired Bonner and Kinane. The Board will not award attorney fees to a non-attorney representative who is not under the supervision of an attorney because an attorney-client relationship does not exist. Horton v. U.S. Postal Service, 7 M.S.P.R. 232, 235 (1981); cf. Shimotsukasa v. U.S. Postal Service, 78 M.S.P.R. 679, 682 (1998) (fact that a non-attorney is not a party to an attorney-client relationship does not preclude recovery of fees for his services; existence of an attorney-client relationship between the appellant and the attorney, by whom the non-attorney is employed, triggers the possibility of an
10 10 award of fees for the non-attorney's services). Here, the record is clear that Harper was a non-attorney. IAFF, Tab 9. She held herself out as a consultant and expert in the area of federal employment matters in her own right. Id. Additionally, there is no evidence that Harper worked under the supervision of any attorney, including Bonner or Kinane. She owned and operated her own business representing federal employees in employment disputes. The appellant hired Bonner and Kinane separately and independently from Harper. IAFF, Tab 3 (Exhibit B). 17 Further, the appearances of Bonner and Kinane in this appeal provide no basis to award fees to Harper. Under the American Bar Association's Code of Professional Responsibility, attorneys may not split fees with laymen or lay organizations or enable them to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. Sailor-Nimocks v. Office of Personnel Management, 66 M.S.P.R. 438, 441 (1995) (citing National Treasury Employees Union v. Department of the Treasury, 656 F.2d 848 (D.C. Cir. 1981). This rule acts as a safeguard against the imposition of incompetent and irresponsible law practice on the public and is based on the fact that non-attorneys are not held to the same standards of competence regarding the law as are attorneys and are not subject to the ethical standards applicable to attorneys. Id. Thus, a non-attorney operating a business for the purpose of representing federal employees is precluded from receiving attorney fees based on the requirement that clients contract with an attorney when the matter is set for a Board hearing, and an attorney enters an appearance at the hearing stage of the Board appeal proceedings. The administrative judge properly denied Harper's request for fees. Harper's motion to intervene. 18 In considering whether to grant a motion for intervention, the Board will review all of the circumstances surrounding the presentation of the motion, including the rights of the parties to the case and the effect upon those parties of
11 11 acceptance of the motion to intervene. Boulware v. Office of Personnel Management, 74 M.S.P.R. 159, 162 (1997). Here, the overriding consideration in determining whether to grant Harper's motion to intervene is the right of the appellant to file a fee motion. Brown v. Department of Health & Human Services, 42 M.S.P.R. 291, 299 (1989); Allen v. U.S. Postal Service, 2 M.S.P.R. 420, 427, 436 (1980). The appellant's fee motion and petition for review of the initial decision awarding fees have fully represented Harper's interest in a fee. Harper recognized this by adopting "by reference" parts of the appellant's petition for review alleging that the administrative judge erred in cutting Harper's fee. Thus, there is no basis to grant Harper's motion to intervene. ORDER 19 We ORDER the agency to pay the attorneys of record $70, in fees. The agency must complete this action no later than 20 days after the date of this decision. See generally Title 5 of the United States Code, section 1204(a)(2) (5 U.S.C. 1204(a)(2)). 20 We also ORDER the agency to tell the appellant and the attorneys promptly in writing when it believes it has fully carried out the Board's Order and of the actions it took to carry out the Board's Order. We ORDER the appellant and the attorneys to provide all necessary information that the agency requests to help it carry out the Board's Order. The appellant and the attorneys, if not notified, should ask the agency about its progress. See 5 C.F.R (b). 21 No later than 30 days after the agency tells the appellant or the attorneys that it has fully carried out the Board's Order, the appellant or the attorneys may file a petition for enforcement with the office that issued the initial decision on this appeal, if the appellant or the attorneys believe that the agency did not fully carry out the Board's Order. The petition should contain specific reasons why the appellant or the attorneys believe the agency has not fully carried out the Board's
12 12 Order, and should include the dates and results of any communications with the agency. See 5 C.F.R (a). 22 This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this appeal. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section (c) (5 C.F.R (c)). NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS You have the right to request the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review this final decision. You must submit your request to the court at the following address: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, DC The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar days after your receipt of this order. If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this order before you do, then you must file with the court no later than 60 calendar days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court has held that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline and that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismissed. See Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to court, you should refer to the federal law that gives you this right. It is found in Title 5 of the United States Code, section 7703 (5 U.S.C. 7703). You may read
13 13 this law as well as review other related material at our web site, FOR THE BOARD: Washington, D.C. Robert E. Taylor Clerk of the Board
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD. GARNETT F. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Agency.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 69 M.S.P.R. 299 Docket Number DC-0752-92-0316-A-1 GARNETT F. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Agency. Date: January 22,1996 Peter B.
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD. ELLSWORTH J. TODD, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Agency.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 71 M.S.P.R. 326 Docket Number DC-0752-95-0623-I-1 ELLSWORTH J. TODD, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Agency. Date: AUG 21,1996 Arthur J. Horne,
More informationTHIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD MICHAEL A. RAGER, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Agency. DOCKET NUMBER SF-0752-10-0929-I-1 DATE: June 29, 2012 THIS FINAL ORDER IS
More informationSMALL CLAIMS RULES. (d) Record of Proceedings. A record shall be made of all small claims court proceedings.
SMALL CLAIMS RULES Rule 501. Scope and Purpose (a) How Known and Cited. These rules for the small claims division for the county court are additions to C.R.C.P. and shall be known and cited as the Colorado
More information2015 IL App (3d) 130003-U. Order filed February 5, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2015
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 (3d 130003-U Order filed
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-3218 ELADIO S. CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. Eladio S. Camacho,
More informationJune 24, 2010 THE MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD ROCKET DOCKET. By: Attorney Josh Bowers. Navigating the Administrative Process of the MSPB 1
June 24, 2010 THE MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD ROCKET DOCKET By: Attorney Josh Bowers Navigating the Administrative Process of the MSPB 1 The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is an independent
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD MICHAEL C. CEBZANOV, Appellant, v. 100 M.S.P.R. 170 DOCKET NUMBER PH-831M-03-0095-B-1 OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Agency. DATE: September 7,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS N O. 05-0080. On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS N O. 05-0080 SANTIAGO M. JUAREZ, APPELLANT, V. JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT
BAP Appeal No. 05-36 Docket No. 29 Filed: 01/20/2006 Page: 1 of 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT IN RE RICHARD A. FORD and TONDA L. FORD, also known as Tonda Yung, Debtors.
More informationNo. 1-10-1602WC IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NOTICE Decision filed 06/27/11. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. Workers' Compensation Commission Division
More informationNEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Copyright 2013 by the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law
5:23A-1.1 Title; authority; scope; intent (a) This chapter, which is promulgated under authority of N.J.S.A. 52:27D-124, 52:17D-198, 40A:14A-43, 40A:14B-76 and 40:55D-53.2a, shall be known as, and may
More informationCHAPTER 42A HEARINGS AND APPEALS. Act shall mean the Casino Control Act, N.J.S.A. 5:12-1 et seq.
CHAPTER 42A HEARINGS AND APPEALS SUBCHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 19:42A-1.1 Definitions The following words and terms, when used in this chapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context
More informationMOHAVE COUNTY JUSTICE COURT. If you want to file a SMALL CLAIMS ANSWER
MOHAVE COUNTY JUSTICE COURT If you want to file a SMALL CLAIMS ANSWER MOHAVE COUNTY JUSTICE COURT You (the defendant) have TWENTY (20) calendar days to file an answer to the small claims complaint. The
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit RONNIE LAWSON, Claimant-Appellant, v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee.
More informationCALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12650-12656
CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12650-12656 12650. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the False Claims Act. (b) For purposes of this article: (1) "Claim" includes any
More informationUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER ) NOE RODRIGUEZ, ) Complainant, ) 8 U.S.C. 1324b Proceeding ) v. ) OCAHO Case
More information: : before this court (the Court Annexed Mediation Program ); and
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In re: ADOPTION OF PROCEDURES GOVERNING : MEDIATION OF MATTERS AND THE
More informationFALSE CLAIMS ACT STATUTORY LANGUAGE
33 U.S.C. 3729-33 FALSE CLAIMS ACT STATUTORY LANGUAGE 31 U.S.C. 3729. False claims (a) LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN ACTS. (1) IN GENERAL. Subject to paragraph (2), any person who (A) knowingly presents, or causes
More informationEMPLOYEES GUIDE TO APPEALING A WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM DENIAL
EMPLOYEES GUIDE TO APPEALING A WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM DENIAL Appeals of workers compensation claim denials are handled by the Labor Commission s Adjudication Division. If you disagree with the claim
More informationTHE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C.
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. DIRECTOR, ) OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL ) RESPONSIBILITY, ) ) Complainant, ) ) Complaint No. 2010-08
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit JULIO G. PIMENTEL, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent. Julio G. Pimentel, of Rosharon,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2013 WI 20 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Joan M. Boyd, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Joan M. Boyd,
More information128 FERC 61,269 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ORDER APPROVING UNCONTESTED SETTLEMENT. (Issued September 21, 2009)
128 FERC 61,269 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer, and Philip D. Moeller. Energy Transfer Partners
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-000079-A-O Lower Case No.: 2012-SC-002127-O Appellant, v.
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2008).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2008). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A10-365 In re the Marriage of: Kari Donna Erickson
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit LOUIS CLAY, Claimant-Appellant v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee
More informationSTATE OF ILLINOIS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
This Recommended Order and Decision became the Order and Decision of the Illinois Human Rights Commission on 4/30/02. STATE OF ILLINOIS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) I. M. HOFMANN, ) )
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION ORDER
Case 4:02-cv-00066-HL Document 136 Filed 02/10/09 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : ex rel. GLENN F. NICHOLS
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: JULY 17, 2015; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2014-CA-002078-ME RACHEL MARIE THOMAS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE RALPH
More informationRULES FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RULES FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA December 1, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA RULES
More informationBRB No. 11-0762 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
BRB No. 11-0762 GRANT L. WILSON v. Claimant-Petitioner HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED and CHARTIS INSURANCE COMPANY Employer/Carrier- Respondents DATE ISSUED: 06/15/2012 DECISION and ORDER
More informationCase 1:05-cr-10037-GAO Document 459 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL NO.
Case 1:05-cr-10037-GAO Document 459 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL NO. 05-10037-GAO-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GRANT BOYD, Defendant. O TOOLE,
More information991. Creation of division of administrative law. 992. Applicability; exemptions; attorney fees; court costs
LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTES, TITLE 49 CHAPTER 13-B. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PART A. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 991. Creation of division of administrative law The division of administrative law, hereafter
More informationBN-20172.etc OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20424-0001
DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY NORTHEAST REGION LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Respondent and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, COUNCIL 163 Charging Party Paul N. Bley, Esquire For the Respondent
More informationSupreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department 61 Broadway New York, New York 10006 (212) 401-0800 (212) 287-1045 FAX
Departmental Disciplinary Committee Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department 61 Broadway (212) 401-0800 (212) 287-1045 FAX HOW TO FILE A COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION When you hire a lawyer
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ALFRED B. CHARLES, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent. 2012-3196 Petition for review
More informationNEGOTIATING WITH MEDICARE AND MEDICAID
NEGOTIATING WITH MEDICARE AND MEDICAID I. MEDICARE PROVIDES HEALTHCARE COVERAGE A. Persons 65 Years Old and Older B. Certain Disabled Persons under 65 C. Persons with End-Stage Renal Disease II. MEDICARE
More informationMEMORANDUM DATE: November 3, 1995
MEMORANDUM DATE: November 3, 1995 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The Federal Labor Relations Authority JESSE ETELSON Administrative Law Judge EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, DC Respondent CA-50198
More informationHow To Get A $1,000 Filing Fee From A Bankruptcy Filing Fee In Arkansas
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PANEL A IN RE: DONALD W. COLSON ARKANSAS BAR ID No. 2005166 CPC Docket No. 2013-008 FINDINGS AND ORDER Donald W. Colson is an attorney licensed
More informationSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Rel. No. 49727 / May 19, 2004 Admin. Proc. File No. 3-11358 In the Matter of the Application of GINA M. GUZZONE 1762-74th
More informationThis is the appeal of an Amended Final Judgment Awarding Costs and Attorney's
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE APPELLATE DIVISION INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: 00-14 L.T. CASE NO.: 97-769-CC
More informationRULES OF THE TAX APPEAL COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
RULES OF THE TAX APPEAL COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I (SCRU-13-0005988) Adopted and Promulgated by the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai i As amended March 6, 1981 Effective March 6, 1981 With Further
More informationHuman Resources People and Organisational Development. Disciplinary Procedure for Senior Staff
Human Resources People and Organisational Development Disciplinary Procedure for Senior Staff AUGUST 2015 1. Introduction 1.1 This procedure applies to Senior Staff. Senior Staff includes: 1.1.1 the Vice-Chancellor
More informationGriffis, Carol v. Five Star Food Service
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Law Winter 2-6-2015 Griffis, Carol
More informationGUIDELINES FOR ATTORNEYS TAXATION OF COURT COSTS IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
GUIDELINES FOR ATTORNEYS TAXATION OF COURT COSTS IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO The purpose of these guidelines is to explain the standard and customary practices of the Clerk s Office of the United
More informationCase 5:10-cv-00206-MTT Document 18 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION
Case 5:10-cv-00206-MTT Document 18 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION SARAH M. STALVEY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-CV-206
More informationSIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM LOCAL PROGRAM RULES AND PROCEDURES
SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM LOCAL PROGRAM RULES AND PROCEDURES SECTION 1 - POLICY It is the policy of the Sixth Judicial District ( district ) to encourage out-of-court
More informationAny civil action exempt from arbitration by action of a presiding judge under ORS 36.405.
CHAPTER 13 Arbitration 13.010 APPLICATION OF CHAPTER (1) This UTCR chapter applies to arbitration under ORS 36.400 to 36.425 and Acts amendatory thereof but, except as therein provided, does not apply
More informationUnauthorized Practice of Law
Unauthorized Practice of Law Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia - Laws, Regulations and Procedures for how to file a complaint against a Notario Publico Overview Notary v. Notario Publico
More informationGuidelines for Guardians ad Litem for Children in Family Court
Guidelines for Guardians ad Litem for Children in Family Court Preamble The following are guidelines for attorneys and non-lawyer volunteers appointed as guardians ad litem for children in most family
More informationUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE DIRECTIVE 4300.5 4/6/04 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE DIRECTIVE 4300.5 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM I. PURPOSE This Directive establishes policy, procedures and responsibilities
More informationHP0868, LD 1187, item 1, 123rd Maine State Legislature An Act To Recoup Health Care Funds through the Maine False Claims Act
PLEASE NOTE: Legislative Information cannot perform research, provide legal advice, or interpret Maine law. For legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney. Be it enacted by the People of the
More informationTitle 31 MARYLAND INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION
31.02.01.00 Title 31 MARYLAND INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION Subtitle 02 POWERS AND DUTIES HEARINGS Chapter 01 Hearings Authority: Insurance Article, 2-109 and 2-205 2-215; State Government Article, 10-206;
More informationNORTHWESTERN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Bruce A. HESLIP 89-267 790 S.W.2d 152 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered May 21, 1990
310 Co. v. HESLIP [302 NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Bruce A. HESLIP 89-267 790 S.W.2d 152 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered May 21, 1990 ESTOPPEL EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL MAY BE
More informationPetitioner Abandoned His Hearing Request
Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Appellate Division Bryant H. Hudson, III, M.D. Docket No. A-12-31 Decision No. 2442 March 1, 2012 FINAL DECISION ON REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
More informationCase 1:03-cr-00422-LEK Document 24 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 7. Petitioner, Respondent. MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER 1
Case 1:03-cr-00422-LEK Document 24 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PATRICK GILBERT, Petitioner, -against- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1:05-CV-0325 (LEK)
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-5155, -5156 CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING COMPANY, GATLIFF COAL COMPANY, and PREMIER ELKHORN COAL COMPANY, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNITED STATES,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
M.R. 3140 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Order entered February 16, 2011. (Deleted material is struck through and new material is underscored.) Effective immediately, Supreme Court Rules
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 08-10136 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 06-01566-CV-T-24-MAP.
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 08-10136 Non-Argument Calendar FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NOV 13, 2008 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D.C. Docket
More informationCase 2:03-cr-00122-JES Document 60 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 7 PageID 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
Case 2:03-cr-00122-JES Document 60 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 7 PageID 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION FRANCIS MACKEY DAVISON, III, Petitioner, vs. Case No.
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS SEBASTIAN/MELBOURNE DISTRICT OFFICE
Ronald Matheny, Employee/Claimant, STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS SEBASTIAN/MELBOURNE DISTRICT OFFICE OJCC Case No. 14-029102RLD vs. Accident
More informationThe What to Expect Series FINRA s Dispute Resolution Process 1
FINRA s Dispute Resolution Process 1 What to Expect: FINRA s Dispute Resolution Process It is rare for most firms to find themselves in a dispute with a customer, an employee, or another firm that escalates
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 13-1603 THE ESTATE OF JOHN R.H. THOURON, CHARLES H. NORRIS, EXECUTOR
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 13-1603 THE ESTATE OF JOHN R.H. THOURON, CHARLES H. NORRIS, EXECUTOR v. Appellant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA On Appeal from the United
More informationCraig A. Adams, Appellant, v. Department of the Army, Agency.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 2007 MSPB 57 Docket No. CH-0752-06-0251-I-1 Craig A. Adams, Appellant, v. Department of the Army, Agency. February 23, 2007 J. P. Karpinsky, Esquire,
More informationTexas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act
Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act 36.001. Definitions In this chapter: (1) Claim means a written or electronically submitted request or demand that: (A) is signed by a provider or a fiscal agent and
More informationJUSTICE COURT # 2 GRAHAM COUNTY STATE OF ARIZONA P.O. BOX 1159, 136 WEST CENTER STREET, PIMA AZ 85543 PHONE (928) 485-2771 FAX (928) 485-9961
JUSTICE COURT # 2 GRAHAM COUNTY STATE OF ARIZONA P.O. BOX 1159, 136 WEST CENTER STREET, PIMA AZ 85543 PHONE (928) 485-2771 FAX (928) 485-9961 SMALL CLAIMS INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING ***EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,
More informationCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS PROCEDURAL RULES FOR WORKERS COMPENSATION HEARINGS
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS PROCEDURAL RULES FOR WORKERS COMPENSATION HEARINGS These Procedural Rules for Workers Compensation Hearings were formally
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 11-5077
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-5077 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUSTIN FOWLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District
More informationCompulsory Arbitration
Local Rule 1301 Scope. Compulsory Arbitration Local Rule 1301 Scope. (1) The following civil actions shall first be submitted to and heard by a Board of Arbitrators: (a) (b) (c) (d) Civil actions, proceedings
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 10-10823 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 6:07-cv-01974-GAP-GJK.
Case: 10-10823 Date Filed: 10/13/2010 Page: 1 of 7 [PUBLISH] CARLOS SHURICK, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-10823 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 6:07-cv-01974-GAP-GJK
More informationRepresenting Yourself In Employment Arbitration: An Employee s Guide
Representing Yourself In Employment Arbitration: An Employee s Guide What is the American Arbitration Association? The American Arbitration Association (AAA ) is a not-for-profit, private, public service
More informationBRB No. 14-0314 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
U.S. Department of Labor Benefits Review Board P.O. Box 37601 Washington, DC 20013-7601 BRB No. 14-0314 PATRICK GRIERSON v. Claimant MARINE TERMINALS CORPORATION and MAJESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY and TECHNOLOGY
More informationUNITED STATES TAX COURT. ROBERT POWELL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Docket No. 18134-06L. Filed July 21, 2009.
T.C. Memo. 2009-174 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ROBERT POWELL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 18134-06L. Filed July 21, 2009. Robert Powell, pro se. Martha J. Weber,
More informationINDIANA FALSE CLAIMS AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT. IC 5-11-5.5 Chapter 5.5. False Claims and Whistleblower Protection
As amended by P.L.79-2007. INDIANA FALSE CLAIMS AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT IC 5-11-5.5 Chapter 5.5. False Claims and Whistleblower Protection IC 5-11-5.5-1 Definitions Sec. 1. The following definitions
More informationSENATE BILL 1486 AN ACT
Senate Engrossed State of Arizona Senate Forty-fifth Legislature First Regular Session 0 SENATE BILL AN ACT AMENDING SECTION -, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED BY LAWS 00, CHAPTER, SECTION ; AMENDING
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS. No. 00-1889. On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals. (Decided January 28, 2002 )
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS No. 00-1889 DAVID PARKER, APPELLANT, V. A NTHONY J. PRINCIPI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Decided
More informationCase 4:04-cv-03526 Document 84 Filed in TXSD on 02/02/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 4:04-cv-03526 Document 84 Filed in TXSD on 02/02/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ALEXANDER WARDLAW, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-04-3526
More informationINDIANA PARALEGAL ASSOCIATION CODE OF ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND RULES FOR ENFORCEMENT
INDIANA PARALEGAL ASSOCIATION CODE OF ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND RULES FOR ENFORCEMENT PREAMBLE The Indiana Paralegal Association ("IPA") is a professional organization comprised of individual
More informationUnited States Department of Energy Office of Hearings and Appeals. Filing Date: May 6, 2014 ) Case No.: PSH-14-0048. Issued: July 17, 2014
*The original of this document contains information which is subject to withholding from disclosure under 5 U.S. C. 552. Such material has been deleted from this copy and replaced with XXXXXX s. United
More informationIn force as of 15 March 2005 based on decision by the President of NIB ARBITRATION REGULATIONS
In force as of 15 March 2005 based on decision by the President of NIB ARBITRATION REGULATIONS Contents I. SCOPE OF APPLICATION... 4 1 Purpose of these Regulations... 4 2 Applicability to different staff
More informationPatricia Clarey, President; Richard Costigan, and Lauri Shanahan, DECISION. This case is before the State Personnel Board (SPB or the Board) after the
MICHAEL BAYLISS v. SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY Appeal from Dismissal BOARD DECISION AND ORDER (Precedential) No. 13-02 October 24, 2013 APPEARANCES: Hubert Lloyd, Labor Relations Representative, CSUEU,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Misc. Docket AG. No. 13. September Term, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND WILLIAM M.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 13 September Term, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. WILLIAM M. LOGAN Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene JJ.
More informationAN ACT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AN ACT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA To amend the District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 to make the District s false claims act consistent with federal law and thereby qualify
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit BURDELL VAUGHN, Claimant-Appellant v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee
More informationChapter No. 367] PUBLIC ACTS, 2001 1 CHAPTER NO. 367 HOUSE BILL NO. 779. By Representatives Briley, Hargett, Pleasant
Chapter No. 367] PUBLIC ACTS, 2001 1 CHAPTER NO. 367 HOUSE BILL NO. 779 By Representatives Briley, Hargett, Pleasant Substituted for: Senate Bill No. 261 By Senator Cohen AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS JUVENILE COURT DEPARTMENT JUVENILE COURT RULES
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS JUVENILE COURT DEPARTMENT JUVENILE COURT RULES FOR THE CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN Rule 1. Scope of Rules These rules apply to all actions in the Juvenile Court Department
More informationCase 1:98-cv-01232-CKK Document 854 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:98-cv-01232-CKK Document 854 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Civil Action
More informationNon- Lawyers' Guide to Administrative Hearings
Office of Administrative Courts [http://www.colorado.gov/cs/satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2fpdf&b lobkey=id&blobtable=mungoblobs&blobwhere=1251601651820&ssbinary=true] [Abridged to omit
More informationRULE 1. ASSIGNMENT OF CASES
LOCAL RULES FOR FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI [Renumbered and codified by order of the Supreme Court effective May 18, 2006; amended effective April 23, 2009.] RULE 1. ASSIGNMENT OF CASES
More informationMcQuiddy, Jana v. Saint Thomas Hospital
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Law 6-28-2016 McQuiddy, Jana v.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-3036 ELIZABETH ANN WATERS, v. Petitioner, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Elizabeth A. Waters, of
More informationRULES GOVERNING PRACTICE BEFORE THE ILLINOIS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION LAST CHANGED JULY 6, 2010
RULES GOVERNING PRACTICE BEFORE THE ILLINOIS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION LAST CHANGED JULY 6, 2010 RULES GOVERNING PRACTICE BEFORE THE ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION INDEX PART 7010 Section
More information2015 IL App (2d) 150610-U No. 2-15-0610 Order filed December 24, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT
No. 2-15-0610 Order filed December 24, 2015 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
More informationHEARING EXAMINER RULES FOR WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION CASES
City of Seattle OFFICE OF HEARING EXAMINER HEARING EXAMINER RULES FOR WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION CASES Adopted May 8, 2014 Office of Hearing Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4000 Mailing: PO Box 94729 Seattle,
More informationV. Bond/Custody Telephonic/Video Conference Hearing Procedure
Telephonic/ Video Conference Hearings I. Overview A. Generally B. Advantages C. Control of Proceedings By the Immigration Judge D. Authority E. Credibility and Due Process Concerns II. Telephonic Hearing
More informationSIXTH CIRCUIT GUARDIAN FEE ISSUES
SIXTH CIRCUIT GUARDIAN FEE ISSUES Billing to leave/receive messages, then billing again when they connect with the person Reductions may be recommended if there are an extraordinary number of such billing
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA BARBRA R. JOYNER, Appellant, CASE NO.: 2012-CV-000003-A-O Lower Case No.: 2010-CC-010676-O v. ONE THOUSAND OAKS, INC.,
More informationT.C. Memo. 2015-26 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION B. SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2015-26 UNITED STATES TAX COURT RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION B. SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER
More informationThe Non-Lawyers Guide to Hearings before the State Engineer
The Non-Lawyers Guide to Hearings before the State Engineer The information provided here contains general information about how to represent yourself in a hearing. This information is to help you prepare
More information