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:
MoreTrustee Appellee., Carol Ann Rich and Campbell, Arellano & Rich on brief for, John Ellis.1, The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's order also removed Hans, Lopez Stubbe as Chapter 7 trustee and remanded the case to the, bankruptcy court for a recalculation of the proper measure of, Lopez's compensation.
Whether Fierro is an American citizen turns, in this case, entirely on issues of law, including the meaning of the automatic citizenship statute in question, 8 U.S.C. 1432(a) (1994), and the legal effect to be accorded to the nunc pro tunc ruling of the Massachusetts probate court.
On page 20, lines 1-3, delete the sentence that begins, Eisen may place .On page 20, line 6, insert the Court's subsequent opinion, in before General Telephone.
208 F.3d 288 (1st Cir., 6, In all events, should WMH demonstrate in the future that individualized statute-of-limitations problems actually shift the balance and undercut the predominance of common issues, the district court may modify its class certification order (or even decertify the class).
, 12, First Trust sued in its capacity as indenture trustee on behalf of the Holders on June 10, 1997, claiming breach of the Disbursement Agreement, alleging that FNBC disbursed funds from the escrow accounts without having first received the initial documents., 6, See Robinson, 732 So.
Loan Ass'n, 403 U.S. 345, 352 (1971). 1974), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the deduction of pre-operation expenditures for a nonprofit credit card related association that would cover expenses such as computer costs, advertising, credit screening, and clerical services.
226 F.3d 237 (3rd Cir., 26, Thus, at least outside of the context of bankruptcy, it is clear that a fraudulent transfer claim arising from Cybergenics' transfers and obligations belongs to Cybergenics' creditors, not to Cybergenics. See Zilkha Energy Co. v. Leighton, 920 F.2d 1520, 1523 (10th Cir.
After Kethan and First Choice removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship, the district court held that the non-competition agreement was enforceable only by MedEcon, and that it was not assignable by MedEcon to MHA without Kethan's consent. See generally Equifax Servs.
MERCK CO., INC.;, 12, While it is true that the FDCA provisions relating to approval of new drugs, 21 U.S.C. 355, discuss approval in the overarching context of finished product approval, it is too simple to suggest that ingredients are in no sense approved in the new drug approval process.
Exhibit A of the BP-Bath contract listed the National Union policy and, on the same page, both Bath and an agent for National Union certified that the general liability policy had limits of at least the amount specified and contained the listed endorsements (Certificate of Insurance).
1999 CFTC Lexis 167, Comm. Ernst Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185 (1976), concluded that the plaintiff in all private sec.10(b) actions must demonstrate the ingredients of common-law fraud. Back in 1989, when Slusser was managing the funds, the maximum penalty was $100, 000 per violation.
217 F.3d 1018 (8th Cir. Like the district court, we disagree. Dame argues that United's announced intent to terminate the Plan raises an arbitrable issue of collective bargaining agreement compliance, and that arbitration might shed light on the meaning of 6.8 and 16.10 of the Plan.
, United States Court of Appeals, For the First Circuit. Dethlefs, 123 F.3d at 47 (stating that considering an unconditional guilty plea as a factor supporting departure would intrude upon the Commission's prerogatives and undercut the sentencing guidelines);
Because Gonzalez's attack on Nichols was not actuated by a purpose to serve Land Transport, it was not within the scope of Gonzalez's employment, and Land Transport may not be held vicariously liable.4 The magistrate judge did not err in entering summary judgment for Land Transport.
, 9, C. Alleged Effects of the Spill on South Port Marine, 10, At trial, South Port alleged damages falling into three general categories: extensive property damage, lost profits, and other economic losses including loss of goodwill and business stress. If it did, admiralty jurisdiction followed;
, United States Court of Appeals, For the First Circuit. So it is here: under the circumstances of this case, the petitioner's Rule 33/Rule 35 motion, notwithstanding its sua sponte recharacterization by the district court, cannot be considered a first habeas petition within the meaning of AEDPA.
233 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. Finding his arguments unconvincing, we deny his petition for review., 10, The Wallace case did not primarily involve IIRIRA, but, rather, a complementary set of changes to the immigration laws effected by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub.
in the district court's opinion.Commissioner.2, And, in any event, Dr. Ruggiano's testimony (in which he, orally completed a Psychiatric Review Technique Form) is fully, consistent with the ALJ's implicit finding that claimant's, personality disorder is not of Listing severity.
Quevillon.entered judgment for $330, 079.95 against Ballard and Baylis. But in this, case, the rescript of the appeals court never issued to the probate, court because [i]f an application of further appellate review is, granted the rescript of the Appeals Court shall not issue to the lower, court.
The trial court entered judgment for $330, 079.95 against Ballard and Baylis., 13, The sole issue before us is whether the district court was correct in ruling that the bankruptcy court should have given preclusive effect to the probate court's finding that Baylis had acted in bad faith.
