TAXPAYERS FOR THE PROTECTION ) Supreme Court Case No OF NEVADA JOBS, a Nevada ) Respondents. )
|
|
- Clare Hutchinson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA TAXPAYERS FOR THE PROTECTION Supreme Court Case No. OF NEVADA JOBS, a Nevada Non-profit organization, Electronically Filed Jul 1 1 0: p.m. Appellant, Tracie K. Lindeman vs. Clerk of Supreme Court ARENA INITIATIVE COMMITTEE, an organized Nevada Ballot Advocacy Group, BRUCE L. WOODBURY, an Individual, in his capacity as the sole Officer of the Arena Initiative Committee ROSS MILLER, in his capacity as Secretary of the State of Nevada; and DOES 1 through, inclusive, Respondents. TAXPAYERS FOR THE PROTECTION Supreme Court Case No. 0 OF NEVADA JOBS, a Nevada Non-profit organization, Appellant. vs. ROSS MILLER, in his capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Nevada; ARENA INITIATIVE COMMITTEE, an organized Nevada Ballot Advocacy Group, Respondents. APPELLANT S ANSWER TO RESPONDENTS ARENA INITIATIVE COMMITTEE AND BRUCE L. WOODBURY S CROSS-PETITION FOR REHEARING Appellant, Taxpayers For The Protection Of Nevada Jobs ( Taxpayers, hereby files its Answer to Respondents, Arena Initiative Committee and Bruce L. Woodbury s (collectively, the Committee Cross-Petition for Rehearing, filed on June, 1 ( Cross-Petition, as directed by this Court s Order Directing Answer to Cross-Petition for Rehearing, issued July, 1. Page 1 of 1 Docket Document 1-
2 INTRODUCTION In its June, 1, Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding ( Order, this Court found that the Arena Initiative s (the initiative description of effect ( Description of Effect is deceptive and materially misleading and does not comply with Nevada law, including Nevada Revised Statute ( NRS.00, because: 1. It fails to reveal the ramifications to the competing arena proposals; and. It fails to inform voters of the precise location of the proposed arena. 1 The Committee has requested rehearing as to this Court s conclusion that the initiative s Description of Effect is defective. Cross-Petition at. In doing so, the Committee asserts that Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure ( NRAP 0(c( authorizes rehearing because this Court erred in three areas: 1. This Court overlooked or misapprehended a material fact in the record;. This Court overlooked or misapprehended a material question of law in the case; and. This Court overlooked, misapplied or failed to consider decisions directly controlling a dispositive issue in this case. The Committee makes these assertions even though all of the issues raised in the Cross-Petition were argued extensively in the District Court and before this Court. The Cross-Petition offers nothing new and the Committee seeks to revisit these arguments only because it lost. The Committee raises no new legal issues 1 Notably, the Committee only requested rehearing as to this Court s finding that the Description of Effect is deceptive and materially misleading because it fails to reveal the ramifications to the competing arena proposals. The Committee did not request rehearing as to the finding that the Description of Effect fails to inform voters of the precise location of the proposed arena. This Court more specifically found that the initiative s Description of Effect was materially misleading and deceptive. Order at. Page of 1
3 and absolutely no new factual issues that were not before this Court when it declared the Description of Effect deceptive and materially misleading. Nor does the Committee establish, as required by NRAP 0, that this Court overlooked or misapprehended a material fact in the record, overlooked or misapprehended a material question of law in the case, or overlooked, misapplied or failed to consider decisions directly controlling a dispositive issue in this case. Therefore, in order to grant the relief requested in the Cross-Petition, this Court must concede that each and every member of this Court reached the wrong conclusion in its Order, based upon the facts and arguments in the record. Taxpayers assert that no such concession is warranted and that the Committee has not demonstrated that this Court erred in any way, as claimed in the Cross-Petition. Rather, the Committee s Cross-Petition is merely an attempt to re-argue this Court s reasoned decision with regard to the Description of Effect. Accordingly, this Court should deny the relief requested by the Respondents in their Cross-Petition. ARGUMENT I. The Committee s Argument I: This Court overlooked or misapprehended that the record clearly establishes the undisputed fact that, under current conditions, over 1,00 acres of land meet the location criteria of the Arena Initiative, and, within that area, there are multiple sites available for immediate construction. The Committee is correct: the record clearly establishes the undisputed fact that, under certain conditions, over 1,00 acres of land meet the location criteria of the initiative. It is precisely because of the failure to describe the effect of those certain conditions that this Court found the Description of Effect did not disclose that the initiative would effectively prohibit all competing arena proposals, and was, therefore, deceptive and materially misleading. Order at. This Court recognized that, as drafted, [s]tatewide voters would assume that the other proposed arenas would qualify under this initiative, Order at, when in reality, they do not. Page of 1
4 For example, during the District Court hearing, a witness was queried as to how many locations the petition could apply. The answer was four or five. (J.A. at Vol II, 00. However, of the four or five, the record established that the Committee s sole financial backer owned all but the Wynn golf course and the El- Ad property. (J.A. at Vol II, 00. Additionally, the location of a qualifying arena is restricted by multiple criteria within the initiative. The Committee applies only one of those criteria, the requirement that a qualifying arena be built within two miles of,000 hotel rooms, to support its argument that there are 1,00 acres in which a qualifying arena could be built. Its argument completely ignores the other criteria. Even then, the suggestion that there are other feasible sites is pure speculation, as the owners of those sites (other than the Committee s sole financial backer have expressed zero interest in imploding existing buildings or tearing out existing golf courses (the Wynn golf course is one of the potential sites to which the Committee refers and donating (one of the other criteria for a qualifying arena their land for the construction of an arena. The fact is that the initiative s multiple criteria for a qualifying arena surgically eliminate all of the competing arena proposals, leaving only one of the proposed arena sites, the one proposed by the Committee, that meets all of the requirements. The Committee is merely attempting to re-argue this point, contrary to NRAP 0. This Court has already found that the initiative s Description of Effect deceptively hid effects and misled the voters. There is nothing in the record to change any facts, arguments, issues or possibilities that would lead to a reversal of the unanimous recognition of the Committee s deceptive tactics. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Page of 1
5 II. The Committee s Argument II: The Arena Initiative ties the arena location to criteria, as opposed to particular property, and circumstances affecting the application of the criteria may change, thereby altering the available arena locations. The Committee asserts: [t]he potential changes in location was (sic a fact that was overlooked or misapprehended in the Order s requirement that the Description of Effect state that only one location was available for the arena under the terms of the initiative. Cross-Petition, at. This is not correct. The Committee argues that the gaming enterprise district could be expanded by the County Commission. This is incorrect. The only way to expand the gaming enterprise district is through the state legislature. NRS.0 sets forth the exact boundaries of the gaming enterprise district within the Las Vegas Strip corridor. Any expansion of that is not within the County s purview: it can only be accomplished by the Legislature. Page of 1 This Court did not overlook or misapprehend that circumstances may change. This Court, based upon the evidence in the record, decided that the likelihood of those changes occurring was so unrealistic that it rejected the argument. The Committee is merely grasping at straws. The Committee argues that portions of Las Vegas could be de-annexed into Clark County, thereby, expanding the area. This theory is flat out impossible. Nevada law does not allow for de-annexation in counties with population over 00,000. It does allow for minor de-annexation in counties with population under 00,000, under NRS.. In order for a property in the City of Las Vegas to move out of Las Vegas and into Clark County (the qualifying arena criteria require that it be in the unincorporated area, the ENTIRE City would have to go through the disincorporation process set forth in NRS. through The Committee s request is based upon a presumption that this Court agrees with the Committee s first argument and reverses its decision that the Description of Effect was deceptive and materially misleading. As stated above, there is no basis for such a reversal of its Order.
6 NRS.. Arguing that the petition could apply to other properties if the City of Las Vegas decided to disincorporate is unfathomable. Equally absurd is the argument that converting a use of property to allow for an arena is a possibility. The evidence in the record shows that such a task would consist of things such as: 1 Mr. Wynn and his board of directors volunteering to rip out their golf course for an arena (J.A. at Vol II, 00; El-Ad giving away their acres for which they paid $1 billion (J.A. at Vol II, 00; or imploding the Wynn or the MGM Grand. (J.A. at Vol II, 00. Finally, the Committee argues that more rooms could be built. Such an argument is equally a stretch, as the evidence before this Court shows that the threshold room requirement is so restrictive that certain major resort properties do not meet the room proximity requirement. The Committee is doing anything it can to get this Court to reconsider its conclusion with regard to the Description of Effect, but has offered no new evidence or arguments that would justify such reconsideration. NRAP 0. III. This argument utterly fails to satisfy the requirements of The Committee s Argument III: The description of effective must be evaluated in the context of the Arena Initiative s circulation. In this argument, the Committee objects to footnote of the Order where this Court indicated that the modified Description of Effect need not include reference to the Legislative session. The Committee argues that the reference to the Legislative session was not superfluous at the time the initiative was circulated; therefore, it was properly included in the Description of Effect and should remain. The Committee does not identify where this Court overlooked or misapprehended a material fact in the record, overlooked or misapprehended a material question of law in the case, or overlooked, misapplied or failed to consider decisions directly controlling a dispositive issue in this case. The Committee Page of 1
7 merely objects to removing the language referencing the Legislative session. The requirements of NRAP 0 are not even remotely satisfied with this argument. IV. The Committee s Argument IV: This Court has not previously mandated that a description expressly identify subjects which are excluded from the scope of an initiative, and therefore, the Order should be modified accordingly. As support for this argument, the Committee states that: Taxpayers have identified no case invalidating a description of effect on the sole basis that it does not expressly explain what is excluded from an initiative and argue that the finding that the description specifically and expressly identify excluded projects is without precedent, contrary to this Court s jurisprudence, and a mischaracterization of the Arena Initiative as an affirmative, not prohibitive, measure. Cross-Petition at 1-1. The Committee completely misunderstands the Order. First, the Order identified two reasons for the finding that the Description of Effect was deceptive and materially misleading: 1 it fails to reveal the ramifications to the competing arena proposals; and it fails to inform voters of the precise location of the proposed arena. Both are valid and each individually is a sufficient basis for the finding that the Description of Effect is deceptive and materially misleading. Second, this Court did not invalidate the Description of Effect because it failed to expressly explain what is excluded from the initiative. This Court invalidated the Description of Effect because it did not disclose all of the material ramifications of the initiative. That is a far cry from invalidating a description of As an aside, the Committee s allegation on page of the Cross-Petition that [t]he Order does not state, nor can it be reasonably interpreted to state, that any of the description s content is inaccurate when this Court s Order specifically found the Description of Effect to be deceptive and materially misleading reflects a genuine misunderstanding of the terms deceptive and materially misleading. The Committee even admits that Clark County can only select one arena if multiple sites are chosen, a fact not disclosed in the Description of Effect. Cross- Petition at. Page of 1
8 effect because it did not expressly explain what was excluded. Read correctly, the Order does not do what the Committee asserts it does. Further, the Committee s claim of a lack of precedent is just flat out wrong. This Court has struck down both initiatives and referenda that did not disclose their material ramifications, even where those material ramifications were not part of the actual language of the initiative or referendum itself. In Las Vegas Taxpayer Accountability Committee v. City of Las Vegas, 1 Nev., P.d (0, this Court stated: We agree with the district court that the description of effect materially fails to accurately identify the consequences of the referendum s passage. In that case, this Court specifically considered not only the language of both the initiative and referendum that were at issue in that case, but also the effects. The initiative at issue, in part, designated the voters of Las Vegas as the City s legislative body, as that term is used in certain redevelopment statutes. 1 Nev., P.d,. This Court concluded that this provision would have the effect of requiring voter approval for key aspects of the redevelopment planning process under Nevada law.... Id. (Emphasis added.. In rejecting the referendum, this Court upheld the District Court s finding that the true effect of the referendum would be to completely terminate the redevelopment plan and, consequently, to impair outstanding securities issued by the Redevelopment Agency. Based on this finding, this Court concluded that the description of effect included with the referendum was misleading, stating that it agreed with the district court that the description of effect materially fails to accurately identify the consequences of the referendum s passage. 1 Nev., P.d at 1. Similarly, in Nevada Judges Association v. Lau, Nev. 1, P.d (, this Court reviewed an initiative that established term limits for elected officials. Id. at. The explanation of the initiative failed to make clear the different effects on elected officials depending on their branch of government. Id. Page of 1
9 at 0. In particular, only judicial positions received no explanation in terms of total years of service. Id. at. This Court upheld a challenge to the petition on the grounds that failure to disclose such ramifications could have been misleading. Id. at 0. The Committee s argument does not satisfy the requirements of NRAP 0 because it does not establish that this Court overlooked or misapprehended a material fact in the record, overlooked or misapprehended a material question of law in the case, or overlooked, misapplied or failed to consider decisions directly controlling a dispositive issue in this case. In fact, as discussed above, this Court s Order followed prior jurisprudence. CONCLUSION This petition has been deceptive and misleading since the day it was filed with the Secretary of State s office. By failing to disclose the effects of the petition to potential signers, the petition proponents have obtained signatures in violation of Nevada law. The Committee included a number of criteria which really have nothing to do with making an arena location successful, but rather were designed to result in only the proponents site being viable. The proponents could have accomplished the same thing by using streets to define the boundaries of a permissible site and then everyone would have understood the location that was intended to benefit from this initiative. The Committee made the policy choice to not do that. The consequence of that choice is that they must explain its effects to the voters. They have not done that. Finally, none of the Committee s arguments provide a sufficient basis under NRAP 0 to grant rehearing. This Court did not overlook or misapprehend a material fact in the record. This Court did not overlook or misapprehend a material question of law in the case. This Court did not overlook, misapply, or fail to consider decisions directly controlling a dispositive issue in this case. This Court reached a conclusion that the Committee does not like. There is absolutely no Page of 1
10 justification for a rehearing based upon the arguments provided in the Cross- Petition. Therefore, this Court should deny the Cross-Petition. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1 th day of July, 1. HOLLAND & HART LLP By: /s/ Scott Scherer Scott Scherer, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 000 E. William Street, Suite 0 Carson City, Nevada 01 Telephone: ( -00 Attorneys for Appellant Unlike the Committee, Taxpayers did not believe it was appropriate to reargue the case, and has attempted to confine its points to answering the Cross-Petition. Moreover, Taxpayers did not seek rehearing of this case with regard to its other arguments because it did not believe that it would materially alter the outcome of the case. For example, this Court did not address the Committee s admission that many of the petitions were circulated in teams and not personally circulated as required by NRS.0. Should this Court grant a rehearing, and because the Committee requests to re-argue issues that have already been resolved by this Court, Taxpayers respectfully requests that it be a full rehearing, and that Taxpayers be given sufficient time to once again address the merits of the entire case and Taxpayers request oral argument of same. Page of 1
11 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO RULES 0 AND 0A 1. I hereby certify that this Answer complies with the formatting requirements of NRAP (a(, the typeface requirements of NRAP (a( and the type style requirements of NRAP (a( because: This Answer has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Word 0 in font size 1 Times New Roman.. I further certify that this Answer complies with the page- or type-volume limitations of NRAP (a( because, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by NRAP (a((c, it is: Proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 1 points or more, and contains,1 words.. Finally, I hereby certify that I have read this Answer, and to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, it is not frivolous or interposed for any improper purpose. I further certify that this Answer complies with all applicable Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure, in particular NRAP (e(1, which requires every assertion in the brief regarding matters in the record to be supported by a reference to the page and volume number, if any, of the transcript or appendix where the matter relied on is to be found. I understand that I may be subject to sanctions in the event that the accompanying brief is not in conformity with the requirements of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure. Dated this 1th day of July, 1. HOLLAND & HART LLP By: /s/ Scott Scherer Scott Scherer, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 000 E. William Street, Suite 0 Carson City, Nevada 01 Telephone: ( -00 Attorneys for Appellant
12 I, Teresa A. Williams, declare: PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in Carson City, State of Nevada, by the law offices of Holland & Hart LLP. My business address is E. William Street, Carson City, Nevada 01. I am over the age of years and not a party to this action. On July 1, 1, I electronically filed the foregoing APPELLANT S ANSWER TO RESPONDENTS CROSS-PETITION FOR REHEARING with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Nevada, via the Court s e-flex system. I certify that all participants in the case are registered e-flex users and that service will be accomplished by e-flex on the following: Jason D. Woodbury Severin A. Carlson Kaempfer Crowell Renshaw Gronauer & Fiorentino jwoodbury@kcnvlaw.com scarlson@kcnvlaw.com Attorneys for Arena Initiative Committee Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General Kevin Benson, Senior Deputy Attorney General Nevada Attorney General s Office KBenson@ag.nv.gov ldeming@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Secretary of State Ross Miller I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on July 1, 1. /s/ Teresa A. Williams An Employee of Holland & Hart LLP
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 13, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-2986 Lower Tribunal No. 99-993 Mario Gonzalez,
More informationBy:!J.~ PILED. MOTIONt OCT 1 g 2016 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP COA APPELLANT WALTERPOOLE,JR.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2015-CP-00604-COA WALTERPOOLE,JR. v. WILLIAM WALTON PILED OCT 1 g 2016 OFFICE OF THE CLERK.SUPAEMECOUAT COURT OF APPEALS APPELLANT APPELLEE MOTION
More informationFILED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA. VILLAGE LEAGUE TO SAVE INCLINE No ASSETS, INC., A NEVADA NON PROFIT CORPORATION, ON BEHALF
VILLAGE LEAGUE TO SAVE INCLINE No. 43441 ASSETS, INC., A NON IN THE THE STATE PRIT CORPORATION, ON BEHALF Appellant, Judge. O1-O7O2 NEvwA FACTS DEPUTY CL&K (O)1947A 41D herself from participation in the
More informationBEFORE THE ALASKA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ON REFERRAL BY THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
BEFORE THE ALASKA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ON REFERRAL BY THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE IN THE MATTER OF ) ) THE CITY OF VALDEZ ) NOTICE OF ESCAPED PROPERTY ) ) OIL & GAS PROPERTY TAX AS 43.56 )
More informationCommonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: DECEMBER 16, 2005; 2:00 P.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2004CA002624MR DAVIESS COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY TAXING DISTRICT APPELLANT APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT
More informationIN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Municipal Tax ) ) I. INTRODUCTION
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Municipal Tax JOHN A. BOGDANSKI, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, State of Oregon, Defendant. TC-MD 130075C DECISION OF DISMISSAL I. INTRODUCTION This matter
More informationBEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE
Filing # 29552579 E-Filed 07/13/2015 11:29:39 AM BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE SC13-1333 LAURA M. WATSON, NO. 12-613 / RECEIVED, 07/13/2015
More informationCase No. C IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
Case No. C081929 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES, Respondent,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. L.T. CASE NO.: 2D v. L.T. CASE NO.: 2D THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC04-1977 L.T. CASE NO.: 2D03-2188 v. L.T. CASE NO.: 2D03-3182 THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Allstate Life Insurance Company, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 89 F.R. 1997 : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Argued: December 9, 2009 Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA City of Philadelphia : : v. : No. 2178 C.D. 2013 : Submitted: October 6, 2014 John Hummel, Jr., : Appellant : BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. 1D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. 1D07-6027 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, AS RECEIVER FOR AMERICAN SUPERIOR INSURANCE COMPANY, INSOLVENT, vs. Petitioner, IMAGINE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA BRUCE BERNSTEIN, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. SC05-1586 HARVEY GOLDMAN, Respondent. / RESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION On Petition To Invoke Discretionary Review Of A Decision
More informationSCAP IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
SCAP-16-0000462 Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAP-16-0000462 12-OCT-2017 05:32 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII TAX FOUNDATION OF HAWAI`I, a Hawai`i non-profit corporation, on behalf
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 94,135 (CI 98-CI 1137)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 94,135 (CI 98-CI 1137) STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. VALIDATION OF NOT EXCEEDING $35,000,000 OSCEOLA COUNTY, OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, a FLORIDA TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
More informationS09A2016. DEKALB COUNTY v. PERDUE et al. Ten years after DeKalb County voters approved the imposition of a onepercent
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: March 22, 2010 S09A2016. DEKALB COUNTY v. PERDUE et al. HUNSTEIN, Chief Justice. Ten years after DeKalb County voters approved the imposition of a onepercent homestead
More informationCase 2:05-cv SRD-JCW Document Filed 06/01/2009 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:05-cv-04182-SRD-JCW Document 18958 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CIVIL ACTION CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION No. 05-4182
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Appellant :
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Northeast Bradford School District, : : Appellant : : v. : No. 2007 C.D. 2016 : Argued: June 5, 2017 Northeast Bradford Education : Association, PSEA/NEA : BEFORE:
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2017-0277, Michael D. Roche & a. v. City of Manchester, the court on August 2, 2018, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs and oral
More informationNO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS
ACCEPTED 225EFJ016538088 FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 11 October 11 P12:36 Lisa Matz CLERK NO. 05-11-01048-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS ROSSER B. MELTON,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC Fifth DCA Case No. 5D10-19, Lake County
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC11-1282 Fifth DCA Case No. 5D10-19, Lake County Upon Petition for Discretionary Review Of A Decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
132 Nev., Advance Opinion 2'3 IN THE THE STATE WILLIAM POREMBA, Appellant, vs. SOUTHERN PAVING; AND S&C CLAIMS SERVICES, INC., Respondents. No. 66888 FILED APR 0 7 2016 BY CHIEF DEPUIVCCE Appeal from a
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Entered on Docket June 0, 0 EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA The following constitutes the order of the court. Signed June, 0 Stephen L. Johnson U.S. Bankruptcy
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Case No CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION, et al.,
Case: 10-35642 08/27/2013 ID: 8758655 DktEntry: 105 Page: 1 of 14 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case No. 10-35642 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Penix v. Ohio Real Estate Appraiser Bd., 2011-Ohio-191.] COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TERESA PENIX -vs- Plaintiff-Appellee OHIO REAL ESTATE APPRAISER BOARD,
More informationWayne W. Williams, in his official capacity as the Colorado Secretary of State; Colorado Department of State; and the State of Colorado,
15CA2017 Natl Fed of Ind Bus v Williams 03-02-2017 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS DATE FILED: March 2, 2017 CASE NUMBER: 2015CA2017 Court of Appeals No. 15CA2017 City and County of Denver District Court No.
More informationUnited States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals
Cite as: Size Appeal of TPMC-Energy Solutions Environmental Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5109 (2010) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals SIZE APPEAL OF: TPMC-Energy
More informationA Look at Voter-Approval Requirements for Local Taxes
A Look at Voter-Approval Requirements for Local Taxes MAC TAYLOR LEGISLATIVE ANALYST MARCH 20, 2014 Introduction For about 100 years, California s local governments generally could raise taxes without
More informationAFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT -against- : : ABEX CORPORATION, et al., : : Defendants. : : X
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT -------------------------------------------------------X : RAYMOND FINERTY and : MARY FINERTY, : INDEX NO. 190187/10 : Plaintiffs,
More informationAPPENDIX IX ATTACHMENT 1 FORMULA RATE PROTOCOLS
APPENDIX IX ATTACHMENT 1 FORMULA RATE PROTOCOLS 1. INTRODUCTION SCE shall calculate its Base Transmission Revenue Requirement ( Base TRR ), as defined in Section 3.6 of the main definitions section of
More informationPARKLAND PROTECTION PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE
PARKLAND PROTECTION PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2006 James C. Kozlowski On August 10, 2005, the President signed into law the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
More informationIN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Security First Insurance Company, Case No. 1D14-1864 Lower Case No. 149960-14 Appellant, v. State of Florida, Office of Insurance Regulation,
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JOHN POWERS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D17-1652 [November 28, 2018] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF COLORADO 101 West Colfax Ave., Suite 800 Denver, Colorado 80202
COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF COLORADO 101 West Colfax Ave., Suite 800 Denver, Colorado 80202 Appeal from the District Court, City and County of Denver Hon. William D. Robbins, District Court Judge, Case
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 13, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D15-1047 Lower Tribunal No. 08-3100 Florida Insurance
More information2016 PA Super 262. Appellant No MDA 2015
2016 PA Super 262 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HENRY L. WILLIAMS, Appellant No. 2078 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 16, 2015 In
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY. v. No CA ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
E-Filed Document Sep 11 2017 10:34:38 2016-CA-00359-SCT Pages: 12 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY APPELLANT v. No. 2016-CA-00359 ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Petitioner,
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) The Swanson Group, Inc. ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No. N C-9509 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) The Swanson Group, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 54863 ) Under Contract No. N68711-91-C-9509 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Case: 12-54 Document: 001113832 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2012 Entry ID: 2173182 No. 12-054 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT In re LOUIS B. BULLARD, Debtor LOUIS B. BULLARD,
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION FIVE CLIFFORD HINDMAN REAL ESTATE, ) INC., ) No. ED91472 ) Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of ) St. Louis County v. ) Cause No. 06CC-002248
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-3-2013 USA v. Edward Meehan Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 11-3392 Follow this and additional
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA NO VINCENT ANGERER TRUST and DEWITT BANK & TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee of the Vincent Angerer Trust.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA NO. 17-1964 ELECTRONICALLY FILED OCT 29, 2018 CLERK OF SUPREME COURT VINCENT ANGERER TRUST and DEWITT BANK & TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee of the Vincent Angerer Trust Appellants,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 8, 2008 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 8, 2008 Session NEWELL WINDOW FURNISHING, INC. v. RUTH E. JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Chancery Court
More informationAppellant, Lower Court Case No.: CC O
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO- MOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: CVA1-06 - 19 vs. CARRIE CLARK, Appellant, Lower Court Case
More informationWORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION 1 March 2001 (01-0973) Original: English EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON IMPORTS OF COTTON-TYPE BED LINEN FROM INDIA AB-2000-13 Report of the Appellate Body Page i
More informationCase No (Fire Fighter Vincent DiBona's health insurance benefits) OPINION AND AWARD
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION In the Matter of the Arbitration X between PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OF NASSAU COUNTY, LOCAL 1588, laff and VILLAGE OF GARDEN CITY Case No. 01-17-0005-1878
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA. Petitioner, S.C. Case No.: SC DCA Case No.: 5D v. L.T. Case No.
Filing # 12738024 Electronically Filed 04/21/2014 04:09:09 PM RECEIVED, 4/21/2014 16:13:38, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE ROBERT J. MACLEAN, Appellant, DOCKET NUMBER SF-0752-06-0611-I-2 v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Agency. DATE: February
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA COA
E-Filed Document Jul 18 2017 16:12:13 2014-CT-01828-SCT Pages: 7 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. 2014-CA-01828-COA APPELLANT VS. CASE NO. 2014-CA-01828-COA BAPTIST HEALTH PLEX, BECKY VRIELAND
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA CRAIG MOORE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Appeal No. A07A0316 ) MARY T. CRANFORD, Judge of the) Coweta County Probate Court, ) ) Appellee ) APPELLANT S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ] ] NO. H023838 Plaintiff and Respondent, ] vs. MICHAEL RAY JOHNSON, ] ] Defendant and Appellant.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE TREASURER, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 18, 2010 v No. 294142 Muskegon Circuit Court HOMER LEE JOHNSON, LC No. 09-046457-CZ and Defendant/Counter-Defendant-
More informationIN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT Case No.: SC Petitioner, BRENDA W. NIX,
----------------------------------------------- -------- IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT Case No.: SC06-1326 ----------------------------------------------- -------- RICHARD A. NIX, Petitioner, v. BRENDA
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 SABR MORTGAGE LOAN 2008-1 SUBSIDIARY-1, LLC, C/O OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC 1661 WORTHINGTON ROAD #100, WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33409 IN THE SUPERIOR
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,628 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,628 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS In the Matter of the Equalization Appeal of HALLBROOK COUNTRY CLUB for the Tax Years 2014 & 2015 in Johnson County,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
129 Nev., Advance Opinion 1-114 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA COUNTY OF CLARK, NEVADA; AND MICHELE SHAFE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CLARK COUNTY ASSESSOR, Appellants, vs. HOWARD HUGHES
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESSES ADVOCATING TARIFF EQUITY, v Appellant, MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and DETROIT EDISON, UNPUBLISHED June 24, 2004 No. 246912 MPSC LC No.
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Theodore R. Robinson, : Petitioner : : v. : : State Employees' Retirement Board, : No. 1136 C.D. 2014 Respondent : Submitted: October 31, 2014 BEFORE: HONORABLE
More informationSTATE OF OHIO LASZLO KISS
[Cite as State v. Kiss, 2009-Ohio-739.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION Nos. 91353 and 91354 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. LASZLO
More informationJack F. SCHERBEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent.
758 P.2d 897 (Utah 1988) Jack F. SCHERBEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent. No. 19633. Supreme Court of Utah. May 3, 1988 Rehearing Denied May 25, 1988.
More informationDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2013 MT 331
November 6 2013 DA 12-0654 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2013 MT 331 JEANETTE DIAZ and LEAH HOFFMANN-BERNHARDT, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. Plaintiffs and
More informationMOTION FOR REHEARING. The Initiative contains multiple separate subjects including at least the following:
RECEIVED APR 09 2019 COLORADO TITLE SETTING BOARD Colorado Secretary at Stab IN THE MATTER OF THE BALLOT TITLE AND SUBMISSION CLAUSE FOR INITIATIVE 20 19-2020 #24, Funding for Public Schools MOTION FOR
More informationVarious publications, including FTB Publication 7277, "Personal Personal Income Tax Notice of Action
M0RRISON I FOERS 'ER Legal Updates & News Legal Updates California State Board of Equalization Adopts New Rules for Franchise Tax Board Tax Appeals May 2008 by Eric J. Cofill Coffill Related Practices:
More informationRESPONDENT CDC BUILDERS, INC. S RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS RIVIERA BILTMORE, LLC AND RIVIERA SEVILLA LLC S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
2070625 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RIVIERA ALMERIA, LLC, RIVIERA BILTMORE, LLC, RIVIERA SEVILLA, LLC, Petitioner(s) CASE NO.: SC11-503 LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NOS: 3D10-1197, 08-2763CA10 vs. CDC BUILDERS,
More informationRespondents. / ANSWER BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF RESPONDENT, THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
JAMES D. STERLING and CAROLYN STERLING, as Parents and Natural Guardians of JAMES D. STERLING, JR., a minor, and JAMES D. STERLING and CAROLYN STERLING, Individually, vs. Petitioners, STATE OF FLORIDA
More informationALAN FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. WALTER C. PETERSON, as City Clerk etc., et al., Respondents
87 Cal. App. 2d 727; 197 P.2d 788; 1948 Cal. App. LEXIS 1385 ALAN FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. WALTER C. PETERSON, as City Clerk etc., et al., Respondents Civ. No. 16329 Court of Appeal of California, Second
More informationState Tax Return (214) (214)
January 2006 Volume 13 Number 2 State Tax Return Sales Of Products Transported Into Indiana By Common Carrier Arranged By Buyer Are Not Indiana Sales For Indiana Corporate Income Tax Apportionment Purposes:
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ROX-ANN REIFER, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WESTPORT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee No. 321 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Order
More informationUNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before BURTON, HAGLER, and SCHASBERGER Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Staff Sergeant ROGER J. RAMIREZ United States Army, Appellant ARMY
More information1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 KEVIN DARRELL FENNER, 3 Protestant/Taxpayer-Appellant, 4 v. NO. 34,365
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also
More informationThomas C. Powell and Roy E. Dezern, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ELIZA THOMAS, v. Appellant, PAMELA PATTON, ROBERT S. SCHINDLER, SR., LINDY THACKSTON, and MULTIMEDIA HOLDINGS CORPORATION and GANNETT RIVER
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY ROBERT BRUCE, Appellant, v. CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC, Appellee. C.A. No. N10A-05-013 CLS ORDER AND NOW, TO WIT, this 13 th day of
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION AND
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC11-299 SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION AND THE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION, Appellees. BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF APPELLEES
More informationARIZONA TAX COURT TX /19/2006 HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG
HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG CLERK OF THE COURT L. Slaughter Deputy FILED: PRAEDIUM IV CENTURY PLAZA LLC JIM L WRIGHT v. MARICOPA COUNTY KATHLEEN A PATTERSON DERYCK R LAVELLE PAUL J MOONEY JERRY A FRIES
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F CURT BEAN TRANSPORT COMPANY
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F500351 DAVID CHILDRESS CURT BEAN TRANSPORT COMPANY CLAIMANT RESPONDENT COMPENSATION MANAGERS, INC. NO. 1 RESPONDENT INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA
More informationBOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF NEW CASTLE COUNTY RULES OF PROCEDURE
Revised: May 17, 2018 BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF NEW CASTLE COUNTY RULES OF PROCEDURE Article I. Authorization. The Board of Assessment Review of New Castle County (hereinafter referred to as the Board
More informationAppeal from the Order Entered April 1, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Civil Division at No(s): C-48-CV
2017 PA Super 280 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF CWALT, INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2007-HY6 MORTGAGE PASS- THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 09-386 DESOTO GATHERING COMPANY, LLC, APPELLANT, VS. JANICE SMALLWOOD, APPELLEE, Opinion Delivered JANUARY 14, 2010 APPEAL FROM THE WHITE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. CV-2008-165,
More informationCASE NO. SC L.T. CASE NO. 1D JAMON A. JOHNSON and CHAKA JOHNSON, Petitioners, UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Electronically Filed 09/09/2013 11:18:02 AM ET RECEIVED, 9/9/2013 11:18:39, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court 122373 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC13-1427 L.T. CASE NO. 1D12-0891 JAMON
More informationFINAL ORDER AFFIRMING TRIAL COURT. the trial court s Final Judgment entered July 16, 2014, in favor of Appellee, Emergency
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-000054-A-O Lower Case No.: 2011-SC-008737-O Appellant, v.
More informationMlekush v. Farmers Insurance Exchange: Defining the Standard for the Insurance Exception to the American Rule
Montana Law Review Online Volume 78 Article 10 7-20-2017 Mlekush v. Farmers Insurance Exchange: Defining the Standard for the Insurance Exception to the American Rule Molly Ricketts Alexander Blewett III
More information153 FERC 61,248 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
153 FERC 61,248 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Norman C. Bay, Chairman; Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony Clark, Tilden Mining Company L.C. and Empire Iron
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI FILED MAY Of nee of the Clerk Suprorne Court Court of Appalll..
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI (\) DOUGLAS MILLER FILED APPELLANT VS. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI MAY 2 1 2010 Of nee of the Clerk Suprorne Court Court of Appalll.. NO.2009-CP-1907-COA APPELLEE
More informationSTATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT
[Cite as Target Natl. Bank v. Loncar, 2013-Ohio-3350.] STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT TARGET NATIONAL BANK, ) CASE NO. 12 MA 104 ) PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, ) ) VS. )
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. vs. CASE NO. SC96659 REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLEE/ CROSS APPELLANT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ROBERT BEELER P0WER, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, vs. CASE NO. SC96659 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee/ Cross-Appellant. / REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLEE/ CROSS APPELLANT INTERLOCUTORY
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS. Colorado Union of Taxpayers Foundation, a Colorado non-profit corporation,
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2015COA162 Court of Appeals No. 14CA1869 Pitkin County District Court No. 12CV224 Honorable John F. Neiley, Judge Colorado Union of Taxpayers Foundation, a Colorado non-profit
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS ) ) ) ) ) OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WOODROW ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of - LKJ Crabbe Inc. Under Contract No. W9124E-15-D-0002 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARNCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 60331 Mr. Kevin Crabbe President
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO MICHAEL SIMIC ) CASE NO. CV 12 782489 ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL ) vs. ) ) ACCOUNTANCY BOARD OF OHIO ) JOURNAL ENTRY AFFIRMING THE
More informationOverview of the USPTO Appeal Process and Practice Tips
Overview of the USPTO Appeal Process and Practice Tips Scott Wolinsky April 12, 2017 2017 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP Decision Factors for Filing Appeal at USPTO - Advancement of Prosecution has
More informationCommonwealth Of Kentucky. Court of Appeals
RENDERED: May 6, 2005; 2:00 p.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2003-CA-002731-MR VICKIE BOGGS HATTEN APPELLANT APPEAL FROM CARTER CIRCUIT COURT V. HONORABLE SAMUEL C.
More information226 December 14, 2017 No. 64 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
226 December 14, 2017 No. 64 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON J. L. WILSON and Justen A. Rainey, Petitioners, v. Ellen F. ROSENBLUM, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent. S065263 (Control)
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA. January 2001 Term. No
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2001 Term FILED February 9, 2001 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA No. 27757 RELEASED February 14, 2001 RORY L.
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-757 In the Supreme Court of the United States DOMICK NELSON, PETITIONER v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
More informationIN THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY. Circuit Court Case No.
IN THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY Warren Redlich, Appellant vs. Circuit Court Case No. 2016-000045-AC-01 State of Florida, Appellee /
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT H036724
Filed 11/10/11; pub. order 12/1/11 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, H036724 (W.C.A.B. Nos. ADJ584277,
More informationS17G1256. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC et al. v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE et al.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: April 16, 2018 S17G1256. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC et al. v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE et al. MELTON, Presiding Justice. This case revolves around a decision
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA City of Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia Tax Review Board to the use of Keystone Health Plan East, Inc. City of Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia Tax Review
More informationsus PETITIONERS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF MAY * MAY US TAX COURT gges t US TAX COURT 7:32 PM LAWRENCE G. GRAEV & LORNA GRAEV, Petitioners,
US TAX COURT gges t US TAX COURT RECEIVED y % sus efiled MAY 31 2017 * MAY 31 2017 7:32 PM LAWRENCE G. GRAEV & LORNA GRAEV, Petitioners, ELECTRONICALLY FILED v. Docket No. 30638-08 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 11/14/18 City of Brisbane v. Cal. Dept. of Tax & Fee Admin. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying
More information