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:
More902 F.2d 169, Fed. Moreover, the mere fact that First Manhattan arranged to sell Wexner's stock to regular customers and explained that sellers of large blocks of stock command less than the quoted market price is not a sufficient factual basis upon which to base a claim of securities fraud.
, CYR, Circuit Judge. 1249, 75 L. Ed. 2d 479 (1983), and we likewise resolve conflicting interpretations of the evidence in favor of the verdict, United States v. Cintolo, 818 F.2d 980, 983 (1st Cir. Graham v. United States, 461 U.S. 947, 103 S. Ct. Thus, SHEME was not a vessel without nationality.
MMI was permitted to intervene., 21, Accordingly, since the acceptance unconditionally obligated the issuing bank to honor the draft drawn pursuant to a letter of credit even as against an alleged defrauding seller, we affirm the district court's denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction.
915 F.2d 692, Jamesv.First Fed. Savings-Austin*, NO. 90-8366, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit., SEP 10, 1990, 1, Appeal From: W.D.Tex., 2, AFFIRMED., *, Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir.R. 34.2
910 F.2d 1279, CENTRAL NATIONAL BANK OF WACO, TEXAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, As Receiver for FirstRepublicBank Waco, N.A. First Republic Waco was a subsidiary of the bank holding company, First RepublicBank Corporation (FRBC). see also FDIC v. Bank of Am.
923 F.2d 843, First National Bank of Marylandv.Envases Venezolanos, NO. 90-7546, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit., OCT 12, 1990, Appeal From: S.D.N.Y., 740 F. Supp. 260, 1, AFFIRMED.
909 F.2d 1473, Halford, Jr.v.First Jersey Sec., NO. 90-7228, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit., JUN 27, 1990, 1, Appeal From: N.D.N.Y., 2, AFFIRMED.
918 F.2d 183, First Interstatev.Paul Timber Co.**, NO. 90-7111, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit., OCT 17, 1990, 1, Appeal From: N.D.Ala., 2, AFFIRMED., **, Local Rule 36 case
899 F.2d 22, First Federal of Alabamav.Lee**, NO. 90-7015, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit., MAR 05, 1990, 1, Appeal From: N.D.Ala., 2, AFFIRMED., **, Local Rule 36 case
, 1, First Jersey National Bank appeals from an order of the district court entered April 17, 1990, on an appeal from an order of the bankruptcy court entered December 13, 1989, which denied First Jersey's motion to dismiss these Chapter 11 proceedings brought by the debtor, Rosemary Brown.
914 F.2d 253, Trahamv.Chrysler First Financial*, NO. 90-4153, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit., SEP 05, 1990, 1, Appeal From: W.D.La., 2, AFFIRMED., *, Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir.R. 34.2
The plaintiff contends that because the insurance company introduced only evidence pertaining to motive, and no evidence that would show that Mills intentionally burned his home, the district court erred as a matter of law in submitting the case to the jury and denying its request for j.n.o.v.
920 F.2d 930, First Horizonv.Benoit Machine*, NO. 90-3320, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit., NOV 29, 1990, 1, Appeal From: E.D.La., 2, AFFIRMED., *, Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir.R. 34.2
914 F.2d 252, Boylanv.First National Bank*, NO. 90-3139, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit., AUG 29, 1990, 1, Appeal From: E.D.La., 2, AFFIRMED., *, Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir.R. 34.2
923 F.2d 840, U.S.v.Savage (John P.), NO. 90-2176, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit., DEC 21, 1990, 1, Appeal From: D.P.R., 2, AFFIRMED.
, 2, The October 19 show cause order was premised on the lack of certification for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P., 3, Certification under Rule 54(b) in the district court after the notice of appeal has been filed does not confer jurisdiction in this court.
, 2, In response to First Union's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Williams filed an amended complaint. Williams asserts that the alleged retaliation was in response to his efforts to enforce his contract rights by filing EEOC charges;
922 F.2d 880, UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v.Carmen A. TORTORA, Defendant, Appellee. imposing conditions of release, the district court shall state in writing the reasons for the action taken. that deference to the court below suggests that the release order be affirmed;
923 F.2d 839, In re Narragansett Capitol Corporation, NO. 90-2066, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit., NOV 02, 1990, 1, Appeal From: D.R.I., 2, DENIED.
923 F.2d 839, U.S.v.Eouse (George A., Jr.), NO. 90-2022, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit., NOV 13, 1990, 1, Appeal From: D.Mass., 2, AFFIRMED.
