COURT ORDER (Re: Defendant s Motion to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5)
|
|
- Jack Robinson
- 7 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 DISTRICT COURT, CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado Plaintiff(s): Transitional Medication, LLC v. Defendant(s): City and County of Denver; City of Denver Department of Excise and Licenses, in their official capacity; Penny May, in her official capacity as Director COURT USE ONLY Case Number: 2011CV370 Division: 424 COURT ORDER (Re: Defendant s Motion to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) THIS MATTER is before the Court pursuant to Defendants Motion to Dismiss Complaint. The Court has reviewed the Motion, Response, case file and applicable statutory and case law. In consideration thereof, the Court makes the following findings and orders: STANDARD OR REVIEW Motions to dismiss pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) are looked upon with disfavor and should not be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. Verrier v. Colo. Dept. of Corr., 77 P.3d 875 (Colo. App. 2003). In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5), the trial court must accept the facts of the complaint as true and determine whether, under any theory of law, plaintiff is entitled to relief. The complaint is sufficient if relief could be granted under such circumstances. W.O. Brisben Co., Inc. v. Krystkowiak, 66 P.3d 133 (Colo. App. 2002). FACTS On January 11, 2010 the Denver City Council passed Ordinance 39 (the Ordinance ) which regulates marijuana dispensaries in Denver. The ordinance requires that marijuana dispensaries obtain a medical marijuana dispensary license ( dispensary license ). A dispensary license shall not be issued for locations that are within 1000 feet of any other medical marijuana dispensary. This restriction does not apply to any applicant who applied for a license prior to March 1, 2010 for any location where the same applicant had commenced operation of a dispensary on or before December 15, Whether or not the dispensary was doing business on or before December 15, 2009 was to be determined by whether the applicant submitted an application for a retail sales tax license ( Tax License ) for the dispensary which was date stamped as received by December 15, 2009 and bearing an effective date of December 15, 2009 or earlier. On June 18, 2010 Plaintiff applied for a dispensary license to operate a dispensary at 999 North Vallejo St., Denver. On September 7, 2010 the dispensary license was denied because 1
2 there was already another dispensary operating within 1000 feet of Plaintiff. The other dispensary, A Cut Off the Top, applied for a dispensary license on June 16, In response to being denied a dispensary license, Plaintiff requested a hearing to determine if good cause existed to deny the dispensary license. That hearing was held on November 22, The Hearing Officer issued a recommended decision denying the dispensary license to Plaintiff. On November 30, 2010 the Director accepted the recommend decision. Written objections were filed by the Plaintiff. On December 15, 2010 the Director issued her final decision denying the Plaintiff a dispensary license. In its complaint, Plaintiff brings seven claims for relief: (1) Denver Municipal Code Ordinance 39 is Unconstitutionally Retroactive Legislation, (2) Denial of Plaintiff s Application Serves as an Unconstitutional Taking of a Vested Property Right, (3) Ordinance 39 s Retrospective Application Violates Colorado Constitution, Article II, Section 11, (4) Ordinance 39 s Retrospective Application Violates Colorado Constitution, Article II, Section 11 by Impairing Plaintiff s Contract Rights, (5) Denver Municipal Code Ordinance 39 s Distance Restrictions are Arbitrary and Capricious and Violate Article II, Section 25 of the Colorado Constitution by Depriving Plaintiff of Due Process, (6) Denver Municipal Code Ordinance 39 Distance Restrictions are Arbitrary and Capricious and Violate Article II, Section 25 of the Colorado Constitution by Depriving Plaintiff of Equal Protection, and (7) Injunctive Relief Pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rule 65. ANALYSIS Defendant moves to dismiss arguing that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Additionally, Defendants challenge Plaintiff s request for a preliminary injunction. Retrospectivity and Vested Rights The Colorado Constitution provides that [n]o... law... retrospective in its operation... shall be passed by the general assembly. Ficarra v. Dept. of Reg. Agencies, Div. of Ins., 849 P.2d 6, 15 (Colo. 1993). An act is deemed to violate this provision when it takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past. Id. (quoting P-W Invs., Inc. v. City of Westminster, 655 P.2d 1365, 1371 (Colo. 1982)). Plaintiff s Claims 1, 3 and 4 argue that the Ordinance is retrospective legislation in violation of the Colorado Constitution. Because a law must impair a vested right to impermissibly violate the Colorado Constitution s proscription of retrospective laws, this analysis must examine whether Plaintiff had a vested right to operate a marijuana dispensary. A vested right must be something more than a mere expectation based on an anticipated continuance of the existing law. It must have become a title, legal or equitable, to the present or future enjoyment of property or future enjoyment of the demand, or a legal exemption from a demand made by another. Id. at 16 (quoting People ex rel. Eitel v. Lindheimer, 21 N.E.2d 318, 321 (Ill. 1939). Plaintiff argues that a permit issued by a local city or county government can constitute a vested right if the permit holder takes steps in reliance on that permit. P-W Invs., Inc. v. City of Westminster, 655 P.2d 165 (Colo. 1982). Plaintiff did apply for and receive several permits including a Tax License, a Use Permit, and several permits for construction. Complaint 20. However, the earliest application of any of these permits was May 7, Id. The Ordinance 2
3 was passed on January 11, Accordingly, on May 7, 2010 the Plaintiff was on notice that a dispensary license was required. Therefore, Plaintiff s decision to undertake expenses and investments in furtherance of this business was done so at its own peril and assumed at its own risk. Further, an apt comparison for marijuana distribution law is liquor law because both regulate the sale of a controlled substance. The Colorado Supreme Court has held [t]here is no vested right in a licensee to continue in the liquor business beyond the expiration of the date of the license under which he operates. Any licensee who invests his time and substance in the liquor business does so with full knowledge that he has no assurance that the desires of the neighborhood, or the requirements thereof, will remain constant, or that new members of boards possessing power to issue or renew a license will reach the same conclusions as their predecessors, and he acts at his peril and assumes the risk that his license may not be granted or renewed. Ficarra, 849 P.2d at 18) (emphasis original). Similarly, dispensary owners who did not have licenses had no vested right that they would be able to continue selling marijuana without further regulation and no guarantee that if further regulations are added that they would still be eligible to sell marijuana. In addition, the right to sell marijuana is not protected by the Colorado Constitution. In 2000 the people of Colorado voted to amend the constitution to allow for the medical use of marijuana. Colo. Const. Art. XVIII 14. The General Assembly then passed laws to enact the provisions. C.R.S Nowhere in any of these provisions has the right to dispense marijuana, except by primary care givers, been found. Id.; see also People v. Clendin, 232 P.3d 210 (Colo. App. 2009) (relying on the Bluebook to determine that distribution of marijuana is still illegal). To be retrospective, legislation impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws. Ficarra, 849 P.2d at 15 (emphasis added). The right to sell marijuana was not an established right under existing laws. Moreover, the existing law at the time Plaintiff sought a Use Permit and building permits was that a dispensary license was required. Finally, in Bunzel v. City of Golden the Colorado Supreme Court determined whether a new regulation requiring the licensing of billiards and pinball machines interfered with the owner s constitutional right to acquire, possess and protect property. 372 P.2d 161 (1962). The Court held that this constitutional provision does not confer upon the citizen a constitutional right to conduct a business which may be inimical to the public morals. Id. at 164. Like pinball machines, marijuana dispensaries are arguably inimical to the public morals and therefore, the right to operate them is not found in the Colorado Constitution. For the above reasons, Plaintiff did not have a vested property right. Therefore, the Ordinance was not impermissibly retrospective. As such, Plaintiff s claims 1, 3 and 4 which allege unconstitutional retrospectivity are without merit. Unconstitutional Taking of a Vested Property Right Plaintiff argues in Claim 2 that it was deprived of a vested property right by the Ordinance. However, Plaintiff did not have a vested property right to sell marijuana. As explained in the previous section, Colorado does not recognize a constitutional right to sell marijuana. See Colo. Const. Art. XVIII 14; Clendin, 232 P.3d 210 (relying on the Bluebook to determine that distribution of marijuana is still illegal). Additionally, Bunzel held that the constitutional right to acquire, posses, and protect property does not confer upon the citizen a constitutional right to conduct a business which may be inimical to the public morals. 372 P.2d 3
4 at 164. Selling marijuana is arguably inimical to the public morals and therefore not a protected constitutional right. Further, the Ordinance is not a regulatory taking of Plaintiff s property. A regulation will only amount to a taking if it was either a per se taking or specific facts make the regulation a taking. Animas Sand and Gravel, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm rs of Cnty. of La Plata, 38 P.3d 39, 61 (Colo. 2001) (citing Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001). A per se taking can be proven by showing either that the regulation has no legitimate purpose or that the regulation leaves the land without reasonable economic value. Id. The regulation has a legitimate state purpose because it is a legitimate state interest to regulate the sale of a controlled substance. Further, the regulation does not deprive the land of all reasonable economic value. While the Plaintiff cannot sell marijuana at the 999 N. Vallejo Street location, there is no reason to think that the location has been stripped of all reasonable economic value. A prohibition of marijuana sales is one discrete activity that has been excluded. If a [property owner] fails to meet its burden of proving a per se taking, it can still prove a taking under a fact-specific inquiry. Id. at 65. Under a fact-specific inquiry, a mere decrease in property value is not enough, and the level of interference must be very high. Id. Not being allowed to sell marijuana at a location does not amount to a high level of interference with the property because it is a limitation on only one discrete activity. There is no vested right to sell marijuana. Additionally, the Ordinance did not amount to a regulatory taking because there was not a per se taking nor was there a high enough level of interference to find a taking under a fact specific analysis. Accordingly, Claim 2 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because there was no unconstitutional taking of a vested property right. Distance Restrictions Plaintiff alleges in claims 6 and 7 that the distance restrictions are arbitrary and capricious, and therefore, violate Plaintiff s due process and equal protection rights. The Ordinance prohibited dispensaries within 1000 feet of another dispensary unless the dispensary had filed for a Retail Sales Tax License before December 15, The Ordinance does classify marijuana dispensary businesses in two ways: those dispensaries that filed before December 15, 2009 and those that did not; and those dispensaries that are within 1000 feet of another dispensary and those that are not. Where the statutory classification involves neither a fundamental right nor a suspect class, different classes of persons may be treated differently without violation of equal protection when the classification is reasonable, not arbitrary, and bears a rational relationship to legitimate state objectives. Hurricane v. Kanover, Ltd., 651 P.2d 1218, 1222 (Colo. 1982). None of the classifications that the Ordinance made are suspect classifications or implicate fundamental rights. Therefore, the classifications must only be reasonable and bear a rational relationship to legitimate state objectives. Id. Rational basis review is the least intrusive form of review and uses a presumption of constitutionality. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, LLC v. Regents of the U. of Colo., ---P.3d---, 2010 WL *9 (Colo. App. 2010). The Ordinance states its purpose is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and promote compliance with other state laws that prohibit trafficking in marijuana for non-medical purposes. It is a legitimate state interest to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. It is also a legitimate interest to seek compliance with state laws. The means chosen by the Ordinance only have to have a rational relationship to the objectives, they do not have to be the best method for achieving such ends. Id. Under this 4
5 deferential standard, regulating the distribution of dispensaries has a rational relationship to the stated objectives because the regulation may make it easier to ensure compliance with state law, limit secondary effects of dispensaries, and prevent trafficking of marijuana. Additionally, it is a reasonable state objective to protect those businesses that had been operating before the new ordinance went into effect. Using retail sales tax licenses with effective dates before December 15, 2009 was a rational way to achieve this objective. Therefore, the Ordinance s distance restrictions are not arbitrary and capricious. Injunction Injunctive relief should be granted sparingly and cautiously. Rathke v. MacFarland, 648 P.2d 648, 653. Additionally, for injunctive relief to be granted, the moving party must establish six prerequisites: (1) that the moving party has a reasonable probability of success; (2) that a danger of real, immediate, and irreparable injury may be prevented by injunctive relief; (3) that there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law; (4) that the granting of the preliminary injunction will not disservice the public interest; (5) that the balance of equities favors an injunction; and (6) that the injunction will preserve the status quo pending trial on the merits. Id. at Because no claims remain, there is not a reasonable probability of success. Therefore, Plaintiff does not meet the first prerequisite and an injunction is not proper. CONCLUSION The Plaintiff does not plead sufficient facts and therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, Defendants Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is GRANTED. SO ORDERED this 20 th day of March, BY THE COURT Sheila A. Rappaport District Court Judge 5
COURT ORDER STANDARD OF REVIEW STATEMENT OF FACTS
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 Plaintiffs: JON C. COOK, an individual, and THE LUMBERYARDS DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., a Colorado Limited Liability Company,
More informationSECRETARY'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT DEBRA JOHNSON S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 SCOTT GESSLER, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Colorado, Plaintiff, EFILED Document
More informationCITY OF LONGMONT S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE
DISTRICT COURT, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO 901 9th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Plaintiff: COLORADO OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION Defendant: CITY OF LONGMONT, COLORADO Eugene Mei, City Attorney Attorney Reg. No.: 33442 E-mail:
More information2:13-cv-11283-GAD-LJM Doc # 6 Filed 04/03/13 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 174 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:13-cv-11283-GAD-LJM Doc # 6 Filed 04/03/13 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 174 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TOM E. FARNSWORTH and PAMELA FARNSWORTH, Plaintiffs, v NATIONSTAR
More informationSUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 99-KA-3511 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS MICHAEL GRANIER ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, HONORABLE ROBERT A. PITRE, JR., JUDGE
More information2015 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 informationCourt of Appeals, State of Colorado 2 East 14th Ave, Denver, CO 80203
Court of Appeals, State of Colorado 2 East 14th Ave, Denver, CO 80203 DATE FILED: April 18, 2014 7:20 PM FILING ID: 9734A64C698C1 CASE NUMBER: 2013CV31385 Name & Address of Lower Court District Court,
More informationCase 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB ERNA GANSER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT
More informationCOLORADO INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION S TRIAL BRIEF
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF COLORADO INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION AND COLORADO ETHICS WATCH Plaintiff v.
More informationDISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO Court Address: 1777 Sixth Street Boulder, CO 80903
DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO Court Address: 1777 Sixth Street Boulder, CO 80903 Plaintiffs: RACHEL CARTER, a Colorado Citizen; and, LEHMAN COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT D E C I S I O N. Rendered on December 28, 2012
[Cite as City of Columbus, Div. of Taxation v. Moses, 2012-Ohio-6199.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT City of Columbus, Division of Taxation, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 12AP-266
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 0 0 Jeffrey S. Kaufman, Esq. JEFFREY S. KAUFMAN, LTD. N. Scottsdale Road, Ste. 0 (0-000 Bar No. 00 Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR
More information2015 IL App (1st) 141179-U. No. 1-14-1179 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 141179-U THIRD DIVISION May 20, 2015 No. 1-14-1179 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 informationMOTION IN LIMINE RE: AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO Court Address: Boulder County Justice Center 1777 Sixth St Boulder, Colorado 80302 Court Phone: (303) 441-3750 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO vs. SHERRI ANN VERSFELT,
More informationDenver City Council. David W. Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney
Department of Law D. Scott Martinez, City Attorney 1437 Bannock St, Room 353 Denver, CO 80202-5375 p: 720.865-8600 f: 720.865-8796 www.denvergov.org/cityattorney TO: FROM: RE: Denver City Council David
More informationDEFENDANT DEBRA JOHNSON S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Rule 12(c) and 12(h)(2))
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, STATE OF COLORADO City and County Building 1437 Bannock Street, Room 256 Denver, Colorado 80202 Plaintiff: SCOTT GESSLER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY
More informationKenneth L. Smith, in propria persona 23636 Genesee Village Rd. COURT USE ONLY Golden, CO 80401 19ranger57@earthlink.net Phone: (303) 526-5451
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Kenneth L. Smith, Plaintiff, v. Hon. Andrew S. Armatas, and County Court, City and County of Denver, Defendants, and Mitchell Morrissey, Indispensable
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 99,491. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 99,491 KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, v. JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Under the Kansas Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 55. In re the complaint filed by the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado, ORDER AFFIRMED
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 55 Court of Appeals No. 11CA0892 Office of Administrative Courts No. 0S20110010 In re the complaint filed by the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado, Appellant, and concerning
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 informationIN 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 informationCase: 4:05-cv-01859-ERW Doc. #: 11 Filed: 03/27/06 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageid>
Case: 4:05-cv-01859-ERW Doc. #: 11 Filed: 03/27/06 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION WILLIAM CULKIN, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Case
More informationDISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO. Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 Plaintiff: JOHN GLEASON, in his official capacity as Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel vs.
More information199 Ariz. 567. Dec. 12, 2000. As Amended March 22, 2001.
199 Ariz. 567 Court of Appeals of Arizona Division 1, Department B Keith JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TEMPE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3 GOVERNING BOARD, Defendant- Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 99-0555.
More informationCase 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SANDRA H. DEYA and EDWIN DEYA, individually and as next friends and natural
More informationCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO 1777 Sixth Street Boulder, CO 80302 Plaintiffs: DATE FILED: June 10, 2014 12:41 PM FILING ID: EFFA98C5BB797 CASE NUMBER: 2014CV30718 CLIFTON WILLMENG and ANN GRIFFIN,
More informationThe Defendants, by and through counsel, the Office of the Attorney General, submit the following Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint.
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, A COLORADO CORPORATION, AND CARRIE ANN LUCAS, Plaintiff(s), v. JOAN HENNEBERRY,
More informationCase 2:05-cv-00103-RCJ-PAL Document 199 Filed 03/21/07 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case :0-cv-000-RCJ-PAL Document Filed 0//0 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 0 STEVEN FERGUSON, Plaintiff, vs. SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS GOLF CLUB, LLC SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS/CHRISTOPHER
More informationNOT 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 informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA KRISTINA R. DOBSON, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE CRANE MCCLENNEN, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA, Respondent
More informationAlabama Rules of Civil Procedure VIII. PROVISIONAL AND FINAL REMEDIES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS. Rule 65. Injunctions.
Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure VIII. PROVISIONAL AND FINAL REMEDIES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (a) Preliminary Injunction. Rule 65. Injunctions. (1) NOTICE. No preliminary injunction shall be issued without
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION. CIVIL CASE NO. 1:06cv97
Case 1:06-cv-00097 Document 10 Filed 05/23/2006 Page 1 of 14 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:06cv97 UNITED STATES
More informationCase: 1:11-cv-07802 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/12/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:<pageid>
Case: 1:11-cv-07802 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/12/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION VONZELL WHITE, Plaintiff, Case
More informationNo. 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 informationCase 5:14-cv-00590-OLG Document 9 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
Case 5:14-cv-00590-OLG Document 9 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DESTINY ANNMARIE RIOS Plaintiff VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-00590
More informationCase 4:08-cv-00142-MHS-ALM Document 58 Filed 06/30/2009 Page 1 of 9
Case 4:08-cv-00142-MHS-ALM Document 58 Filed 06/30/2009 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Case No. 4:08-CV-142
More informationCOMPLAINT PARTIES. 2. COGA promotes the expansion of oil and gas supplies, markets, and transportation infrastructure.
DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO 1777 Sixth Street Boulder, CO 80302 Plaintiff: COLORADO OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION v. Defendant: COURT USE ONLY Case No. Division/Courtroom: CITY OF LAFAYETTE, COLORADO
More informationOrder and Temporary Injunction. Appearances of counsel are noted in the record. being duly advised in the premises, the Court makes the following:
STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: CIVIL OTHER Al Franken for Senate, Plaintiff, Court File No. 62-CV-08-11578 vs. Ramsey County, Joseph Mansky, and
More informationFILED May 21, 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 140713-U NO. 4-14-0713
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 16, 2009 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 16, 2009 Session NATIONAL COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY AND REMINGTON COLLEGE -- MEMPHIS CAMPUS v. TENNESSEE HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION An
More informationColorado s Civil Access Pilot Project and the Changing Landscape of Business Litigation
Colorado s Civil Access Pilot Project and the Changing Landscape of Business Litigation On January 1, 2012, new rules approved by the Colorado Supreme Court entitled the Civil Access Pilot Project ( CAPP
More informationORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT. THIS MATTER comes on for consideration of DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DISTRICT COURT, EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO Court address: P.O. Box 2980 270 South Tejon Street Colorado Springs, CO 80903 DATE FILED: July 29, 2014 2:12 PM CASE NUMBER: 2013CV2249 Phone Number: (719) 452-5279
More informationCase: 1:06-cv-04360 Document #: 27 Filed: 04/10/07 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:<pageid>
Case: 1:06-cv-04360 Document #: 27 Filed: 04/10/07 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ORLANDO QUILLES, LAWRENCE R. LYNCH and BROKERS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 21, 2014 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 21, 2014 Session J. JASON TOLLESON v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INSURANCE, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County
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 informationCase 1:13-cv-00563-RBJ Document 56 Filed 09/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9
Case 1:13-cv-00563-RBJ Document 56 Filed 09/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Civil Action No 13-cv-00563-RBJ W.L. (BILL) ARMSTRONG; JEFFREY S. MAY; WILLIAM L. (WIL) ARMSTRONG III; JOHN A. MAY; DOROTHY A.
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANTHONY DARNELL SMITH, JR., Appellant No. 1314 MDA 2015 Appeal
More informationSTEPHEN S. EDWARDS, individually and as Trustee of the Super Trust Fund, u/t/d June 15, 2001, Plaintiff/Appellant,
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STEPHEN
More informationDISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202. σ COURT USE ONLY σ
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 Plaintiff: VAIL RESORTS, INC., a Delaware corporation Defendants: PENINSULA ADVISORS, LLC, a Delaware
More informationCase 2:08-cv-02427-EFM Document 44 Filed 12/14/09 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:08-cv-02427-EFM Document 44 Filed 12/14/09 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS MAX SEIFERT, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 08-2427-EFM KANSAS CITY, KANSAS COMMUNITY
More informationBEFORE THE INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW
BEFORE THE INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW MIDDLEBURY SOLAR, LLC, Petition Nos. 20-032-14-9-2-00001 20-032-13-9-2-00001 Petitioner, Parcel No. 20-04-35-379-014.000-032 v. County: Elkhart INDIANA DEPARTMENT
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as Buckeye Local School Dist. v. Ohio Assn. of Pub. School Emps., 2012-Ohio-5810.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) BUCKEYE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
More informationNO. COA12-641 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 15 January 2013. v. Forsyth County No. 10 CRS 057199 KELVIN DEON WILSON
NO. COA12-641 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 January 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Forsyth County No. 10 CRS 057199 KELVIN DEON WILSON 1. Appeal and Error notice of appeal timeliness between
More information2:05-cv-74922-GER-VMM Doc # 5 Filed 02/08/06 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:05-cv-74922-GER-VMM Doc # 5 Filed 02/08/06 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MCCONNELL ADAMS, JR., Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 05-CV-74922-DT HONORABLE
More informationRestigouche, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. No. 94-4049.
Restigouche, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. No. 94-4049. RESTIGOUCHE, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF JUPITER, a Florida Municipal
More informationILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS
ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court Hart v. Kieu Le, 2013 IL App (2d) 121380 Appellate Court Caption LYNETTE Y. HART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOAN KIEU LE, Defendant-Appellee. District & No. Second
More informationCOURT USE ONLY Case Number: Names:
COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF COLORADO Colorado State Judicial Building 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Appeal from the Denver County District Court Honorable A. Bruce Jones, District Court Judge
More informationCase 8:13-cv-01731-VMC-TBM Document 36 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 134 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:13-cv-01731-VMC-TBM Document 36 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 134 JOHN and JOANNA ROBERTS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 8:13-cv-1731-T-33TBM
More informationCOMPLAINT PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Plaintiffs: COLORADO ETHICS WATCH and COLORADO COMMON CAUSE, v. Defendant: SCOTT GESSLER, in
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9 th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9 th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA DEAN KUMANCHIK, vs. Plaintiff, Case No.: UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LTD d/b/a UNIVERSAL STUDIOS, a Florida
More informationNO. 4-09-0753 Filed 6/21/10 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PRESIDING JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH delivered the opinion of
NO. 4-09-0753 Filed 6/21/10 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT CHARLES DALLAS, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. AMEREN CIPS, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee. ) ) ) ) )
More informationSTATE DEFENDANTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 GARY R. JUSTUS, KATHLEEN HOPKINS, EUGENE HALAAS, JR. and ROBERT P. LAIRD, JR., on behalf of themselves and those
More informationSTATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
ST 09-1 Tax Type: Issue: Sales Tax Bad Debt Write-Off STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS ABC, INC., ) Docket No. 07-ST-0000 Taxpayer ) Claim Periods
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 174
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 174 Court of Appeals No. 11CA1917 Arapahoe County District Court No. 10CV1320 Honorable Elizabeth A. Weishaupl, Judge Gerald Richard Corder, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William
More informationCOMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Denver District Court 1437 Bannock Street, #256 Denver, CO 80202 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF COLORADO, a Colorado corporation, v. Plaintiff, ALVIN J. LaCABE, JR., in his official capacity as Manager
More informationincluding violations of the Colorado Foreclosure Protection Act, 6-1-1101 6-1-1120, C.R.S.
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80202 STATE OF COLORADO, ex rel. John W. Suthers, Attorney General, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN MORTGAGE CONSULTANTS-AMC,
More informationS T A T E O F T E N N E S S E E OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PO BOX 20207 NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37202. April 16, 2007. Opinion No.
Cable Bill under the Contract Clause S T A T E O F T E N N E S S E E OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PO BOX 20207 NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37202 April 16, 2007 Opinion No. 07-51 QUESTIONS House Bill 1421/Senate
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 10-10304. D. C. Docket No. 0:09-cv-60016-WPD. versus
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-10304 D. C. Docket No. 0:09-cv-60016-WPD HOLLYWOOD MOBILE ESTATES LIMITED, a Florida Limited Partnership, versus MITCHELL CYPRESS,
More informationASSEMBLY BILL No. 597
california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and to add Chapter 6 (commencing with
More informationCase 1:07-cv-00753-MSK-BNB Document 29 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:07-cv-00753-MSK-BNB Document 29 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-CV-00753-MSK-BNB ALEXANDER L. TRUJILLO, DAVID HENRICHSEN,
More informationI N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Randall R. Fearnow Quarles & Brady, LLP Chicago, Illinois 60654 Lucy R. Dollens Larissa E. Koshatka Quarles & Brady, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Gregory F.
More informationDISTRICT CT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, STATE OF COLORADO Case No.. 96-CV-4693
DISTRICT CT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, STATE OF COLORADO Case No.. 96-CV-4693 ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ROBERT LEWIS, STOREFRONTS IN CYBERSPACE, a Colorado limited liability company, and
More informationNecessity of the Fees Requested by Defendants, filed on May 9, 2012.
DISTRICT COURT, DENVER COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO City and County Building 1437 Bannock, Denver, CO 80202 COURT USE ONLY Plaintiffs: ANANDA MARGA, INC., a Colorado Nonprofit Corporation, et al.; v. Case
More information5. The location and description of the premises or place of business which is to be operated under such license.
VERGENNES TOWNSHIP, KENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN Ordinance 2004-10 Renamed and Amended June 2007 Formerly Titled Township Beer and Wine License Ordinance Amendments eliminated term beer and wine and replaced
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CALVERT BAIL BOND AGENCY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION March 10, 2016 9:00 a.m. v No. 324824 St. Clair Circuit Court COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR, LC No. 13-002205-CZ
More informationCase 3:15-cv-00333-JLH Document 39 Filed 04/13/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION
Case 3:15-cv-00333-JLH Document 39 Filed 04/13/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION NUCOR STEEL-ARKANSAS; and NUCOR-YAMATO STEEL COMPANY PLAINTIFFS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
W. ANDREW MCCULLOUGH, L.L.C. (2170) Attorney for Plaintiffs 6885 South State St., Suite 200 Midvale, UT 84047 Telephone: (801) 565-0894 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL
More informationDISTRICT COURT. EL PASO COUNTY. COLORADO 270 S. Tejon Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901 STATE OF COLORADO, ex rel. JOH1. W. SUTHERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
DISTRICT COURT. EL PASO COUNTY. COLORADO 270 S. Tejon Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901 STATE OF COLORADO, ex rel. JOH1. W. SUTHERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Plaintiff, V. IMMIGRATION CENTER alk/a U.S. IMMIGRATION
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A12-2155 Marvin Orlando Johnson, petitioner, Appellant,
More informationHow To Get A Tax Lien In A Tax Case In The United States
Case 1:04-cv-00446-MHW Document 19 Filed 02/03/06 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO LETHA RUPERT, Case No. CV 04-446-S-MHW Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
More informationHow To Sue Allstate Insurance Company
Case 0:07-cv-60771-JIC Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/07 09:36:18 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MRI SCAN CENTER, INC., on itself and all others similarly situated,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 7, 2003 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 7, 2003 Session ALEXANDER C. WELLS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Tennessee Claims Commission No. 99002107 No. M2002-01958-COA-R3-CV - Filed
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION VISTA MARKETING, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:12-cv-1640-T-30TBM TERRI A. BURKETT and JOSEPH R. PARK, Defendants. / ORDER THIS CAUSE
More informationAMENDED UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock St. Denver, CO 80203 Plaintiff: CATHERINE E. KLEINSMITH v. Defendants: SCOTT GESSLER in his official capacity as the Secretary of State
More informationCase: 1:07-cv-04110 Document #: 44 Filed: 03/12/09 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:<pageid>
Case: 1:07-cv-04110 Document #: 44 Filed: 03/12/09 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: MARIO R. ALIANO, SR., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff,
More informationCase: 1:10-cv-02125 Document #: 55 Filed: 02/03/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:411
Case: 1:10-cv-02125 Document #: 55 Filed: 02/03/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:411 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION GUARANTEE TRUST LIFE ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationDepartment, Board, Or Commission Author Bill Number
BILL ANALYSIS Department, Board, Or Commission Author Bill Number Franchise Tax Board Leno SB 467 SUBJECT Privacy/Electronic Communication/Warrants SUMMARY The bill would require the department to obtain
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CA-01673-COA
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CA-01673-COA LEE W. ULMER APPELLANT v. TRACKER MARINE, LLC D/B/A TRACKER MARINE GROUP D/B/A TRAVIS BOATING CENTER, MAKO MARINE INTERNATIONAL,
More informationASSEMBLY BILL No. 597
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 14, 2015 california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and
More informationCOLORADO REVISED STATUTES
COLORADO REVISED STATUTES *** This document reflects changes current through all laws passed at the First Regular Session of the Sixty-Ninth General Assembly of the State of Colorado (2013) *** TITLE 18.
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: MAY 14, 2010; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-000282-MR AND NO. 2009-CA-000334-MR BRIAN G. SULLIVAN APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals No. 13-1142 For the Seventh Circuit LARRY BRYANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0721n.06. No. 13-2126 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0721n.06 No. 13-2126 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PATRICK RUGIERO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; FANNIE MAE; MORTGAGE
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL LAW ESSAY QUESTION #2 MODEL ANSWER
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ESSAY QUESTION #2 MODEL ANSWER Because of teenage pregnancy student dropouts, the Board of Education of City (Board) adopted an "Alternative Education Program" (AEP) for unmarried students
More informationDEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Appellate Division In the Case of: The Physicians Hospital in Anadarko, Petitioner, - v. - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. DATE:
More informationCase 2:09-cv-02139-GEB -GGH Document 13 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-0-GEB -GGH Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 EDITH STONE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) :0-cv-0-GEB-KJM ) v. ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 11, 2015 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 11, 2015 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DUSTY ROSS BINKLEY Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2009-I-833 Steve R. Dozier,
More informationCOLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK
MEMORANDUM TO: JAMES TIERNEY, PROGRAM DIRECTOR FROM: SARAH SPRUCE, PRO BONO ATTORNEY RE: OVERVIEW OF VERMONT YANKEE CASE ENTERGY V. SHUMLIN, ET AL. DATE: AUGUST 12, 2011 I. Introduction In 2002, the current
More informationCase 2:14-cv-00170-TS Document 45 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
Case 2:14-cv-00170-TS Document 45 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut corporation, and
More information