The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (in case citations, 1st Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:
More, 13, Circuit courts which have addressed the issue subsequent to the Penland case have expressly adopted the criteria enunciated by the Eighth Circuit's local rule 28(a), (excepting section (a)(2)(ii) of that rule), as modified by the Sixth Circuit's Penland decision.
, 7, The case resulted in two trials. At the first trial, the jury held St. Paul responsible for the costs to repair the collapsed walls and, following instructions from the trial judge, found that St. Paul improperly denied coverage based on its earth movement exclusion clause.
838 F.2d 460, De Perri (Nicholas)v.Rutgers, State University St. John's University, NJHEAA, First Nat. State Bank, NO. 87-5331, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit., DEC 24, 1987, Appeal From: D.N.J. Barry, J., 1, AFFIRMED.
The district court did not err in concluding that Bancroft is likely to succeed in establishing that the Zico tender offer, if successful, would violate section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Investment Company Act because the Zico shareholders are a well-organized and coordinated group, and thus a company.
12(2) and 17(a) of the 1933 Securities Act, provisions which were clearly inapplicable to this litigation, 5, This count alleged that Arthur Young violated Sec. 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act by conspiring with the other defendants from the outset to defraud the Burulls.
*, 2, This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Plaintiffs must affirmatively plead jurisdiction of a federal court. Smith v. Spina, 477 F.2d 1140 (3d Cir. Monell v. New York City Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
838 F.2d 459, Clifford (Jean M.)v.ITB Groton, First Tug/Barge Corporation, NO. 87-3313, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit., DEC 22, 1987, 1, Appeal From: D.V.I., 2, AFFIRMED.
First and Second Vice-Mayors, Harold Smith and George Fraley; The defendants filed a timely notice of appeal, in which they argue that the district court erred in failing to grant their motions for summary judgment on the basis of qualified and/or absolute immunity and the statute of limitations.
825 F.2d 362, 16 Bankr.Ct.Dec. The district court dismissed the Lashleys' appeal on the grounds that the appellee bank properly resumed state foreclosure proceedings after the bankruptcy court's order of dismissal and because the appeal was rendered moot by the foreclosure sale.
826 F.2d 1064, Maxberry (Dennis Lee)v.First National Bank, Terwiller (John), NOS. 87-3021, 87-3140, United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit., AUG 10, 1987, Appeal From: S.D.Ohio, 1, AFFIRMED.
835 F.2d 286, Hargusv.First Nat'l Bank*, NO. 87-2916, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit., NOV 25, 1987, Appeal From: S.D.Tex., 666 F. Supp. 111, 1, AFFIRMED., *, Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir.R. 34.2
, 9, In an order dated January 28, 1987 (Super Priority Financing Order), the bankruptcy court granted the debtor's Super Priority Financing Motion, 5 and notice of appeal was filed by First South in the district court on the following day, and the district court has jurisdiction over that appeal.
831 F.2d 281, Diaz-Serrano (Angel)v.Secretary of Health and Human Services, NO. 87-2107, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit., SEP 16, 1987, 1, Appeal From: D.P.R., 2, VACATED AND REMANDED.
833 F.2d 1004Unpublished Disposition, NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. As grounds for appeal Reed asserts that the district court should have (i) applied Maryland rather than Florida law and (ii) found that the vessel Smoker had a higher fair market value than $100, 000 on 1 June 1985. Fed.R.Civ.P.
Only under this third interpretation would Bedford Bank have violated a restrictive endorsement, by failing to deposit the check in a Mary Tull account., 45, G. Denial of Motion To Vacate Final Judgment, 46, The district court granted summary judgment to Bedford Bank on April 14, 1986.
836 F.2d 193, RADIATOR SPECIALTY COMPANY, a Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.FIRST STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee., United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court entered judgment for First State.
726, 730-31 (D.Mass.1987), we are not convinced that no viable mail fraud or other offense can possibly be stated. U.S. Const. 1041, 28 L. Ed. 2d 434 (1970) (fifth amendment privilege may be invoked in a forfeiture proceeding which is civil in form, but criminal in nature).
836 F.2d 1341, Hart (Wilfred)v.U.S., NO. 87-1867, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit., DEC 23, 1987, 1, Appeal From: D.Me., 2, DISMISSED.
836 F.2d 1341, Rodriguez (Angel M. Maldonado)v.Secretary of Health and Human Services, NO. 87-1860, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit., DEC 17, 1987, 1, Appeal From: D.P.R., 2, VACATED AND REMANDED.
836 F.2d 1340, In re National Railroad Passenger Corporation, NO. 87-1835, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit., OCT 22, 1987, 1, Appeal From: D.Mass., 2, DENIED.
