1286 search results for query *

Summary: 96 F. Supp. It is true that for several years last past respondents have, in furtherance and in the execution of their common plan, design and purpose within their system and district, by their regulations, customs and usages, and in execution thereof, adopted and declared and do now adopt and declare: That all children of persons of Mexican or Latin descent or extraction, though citizens of the United States of America, shall be, have been and now are excluded from attending, using, enjoying more.

Summary: 619 F. Supp. 710 (1985) WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, and Donald Lee Husk and Kathleen Karen Husk, individually and/or as a partnership, dba Wells Fargo Construction Company, Defendants. Wells Fargo & Company is the owner of United States Service Mark Registration 779,187 issued October 27, 1964, for the WELLS FARGO mark for banking and trust services; United States Service Mark Registration 1,136,497 issued May 27, 1980, for more.

Summary: 153 F. Supp. Even assuming good cause for termination was required, there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding Allstate's good-faith belief that Almada engaged in sexual harassment. Alternatively, Allstate argues that even if Almada was not an at-will employee, no genuine issue of fact exists as to Allstate's good cause to terminate Almada based upon its reasonable, good-faith belief that Almada had violated the company's policy against sexual harassment. See Huey v. Honeywell, Inc., more.

Summary: 64 F. Supp. On February 17, 1999, Petitioner Mohan Saini filed a "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus With Stay of Deportation" and a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"). At a hearing on February 24, 1999, and by Order filed on March 2, 1999, this Court granted Saini's Motion for an Order enjoining Respondent I.N.S. from removing him pending resolution of an appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA").Following a hearing more.

Summary: 172 F. Supp. August 20, 1992, Plaintiffs filed this action seeking declaratory relief against the Defendants for failing to provide limited English proficient (LEP) children with a program of instruction calculated to make them proficient in speaking, understanding, reading, and writing English, while enabling them to master the standard academic *1226 curriculum as required of all students. 2d 1 (1974) (failure to provide English instruction to students of Chinese decent who do not speak more.

Summary: 606 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (2009) Kristy PRUETT, Plaintiff, v. State of ARIZONA, a public entity; Arizona Game and Fish Commission, an agency of the State of Arizona; and Larry Voyles, in his capacity as Director of the Arizona Game and Fish Department, Defendants. Plaintiff Kristy Pruett brought this action for a determination that federal disability laws entitle her to keep a chimpanzee in her home as a service animal, overriding Arizona law to the contrary. I. Background Pruett seeks modification more.

Summary: 663 F. Supp. Having considered the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed November 20, 1986, the Plaintiff's Response, filed February 18, 1987, and the Defendants' Reply, filed March 13, 1987, this Court hereby finds and concludes as follows: FACTS This action concerns the constitutional implications raised by a series of digital rectal cavity searches conducted by prison authorities at the Arizona State Prison at Florence. [1] In their Motion for Summary Judgment, the Defendants argue more.

Summary: 705 F. Supp. The issues left for trial were whether there was an excessive use of force in the tear gassing of the people in the liquor store, whether plaintiffs were arrested without probable cause, whether conditions of detention *1429 of the plaintiffs were unwarranted, whether commanders were liable for a plan that resulted in the plaintiffs being unable to find out who had arrested them, and whether qualified immunity was a defense. An arrested person was to be escorted by the arresting more.

Summary: 281 F. Supp. Michael J. O'Connor, Esq., Douglas F. Behm, Michael ScottMcCoy, Michael J. Farrell, Jennings Strouss & Salmon, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, Seth Aronson, Esq., Marc F. Feinstein, Patrick Lynch, Floy E. Andrews, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Michael R. Klein, Steven F. Cherry, Howard M. Shapiro, David P. Donovan, Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, Washington, DC, Michael J. Bowe, Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP, New York City, Thomas R. Sheets, Southwest Gas Corporation, Steve Morris, more.

Summary: 353 F. Supp. Plaintiff's complaint alleges jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361 and 1391(e), and seeks relief from the administrative decision of the Secretary of the Interior in that the Robe Roye-Martin-Missing Link placer mining claim is alleged to be null and void for lack of discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. Silverton then filed an application October 6, 1964, to patent Arizona 034305, the Robe Roye-Martin-Missing Link more.

Summary: (2008) Tobias GOTBAUM, Nathaniel Gotbaum, Ella Gotbaum, the natural children of Carol Anne Gotbaum by and through their Next Friend, Noah Gotbaum; and the Estate of Carol Anne Gotbaum, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, a public entity; City of Phoenix Police Department; Chief Jack Harris; Jason K. Toth; Andrew B. Wonya; Duane A. Rigg, Jr.; Dick C. Richards; and Terri L. Klepper, Defendants. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss all predeath suffering claims and to dismiss the City of Phoenix more.

Summary: 539 F. Supp. Plaintiff has brought this action in the United States District Court praying that this court declare unconstitutional Article XXII, § 18 of the Constitution of the State of Arizona and to enjoin the defendants from enforcing that provision against the defendant. Defendant, Steven Neely, is the duly elected County Attorney for the County of Pima, State of Arizona, and is empowered, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2042, to bring an action in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona more.

Summary: 280 F. Supp. Having considered the parties' memoranda and the oral argument of counsel, the Court finds that the plaintiff's motion should be granted, and the defendant's motion denied, because ERISA does not preempt the plaintiff's state law claims inasmuch as the plaintiff's disability insurance policy is not part of an ERISA-governed employee welfare plan. The plaintiff obtained the insurance policy through independent insurance agent Ian Ackerman, an acquaintance, who approached him in May more.

In Re Cases Filed by DIRECTV, Inc., 344 F. Supp. 2d 647 (2004) (Docket No.: CV 03-00967-PHX (HRH) CV 03-00968-PHX (HRH) CV 03-00971-PHX (HRH) CV 03-00972-PHX (HRH) CV 03-00973-PHX (HRH) CV 03-00976-PHX (HRH) CV 03-00977-PHX (HRH) CV 03-00978-PHX (HRH) CV 03-00981-PHX (HRH) CV 03-00982-PHX (HRH) CV 03-00989-PHX (HRH) CV 03-00993-PHX (HRH) CV 03-00999-PHX (HRH) CV 03-01002-PHX (HRH) CV 03-01774-PHX (HRH) CV 03-01776-PHX (HRH) CV 03-01794-PHX (HRH) CV 03-02147-PHX (HRH) CV 03-02181-PHX (HRH) CV 03-02182-PHX (HRH) CV 03-02450-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00172-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00177-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00180-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00182-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00184-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00185-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00193-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00196-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00502-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00503-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00504-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00505-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00507-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00508-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00509-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00664-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00665-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00805-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00807-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00808-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00809-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00810-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00812-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00813-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00814-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00815-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00816-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00817-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00818-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00819-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00821-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00822-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00828-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00829-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00832-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00835-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00836-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00837-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00840-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00842-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00844-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00850-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00851-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00852-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00853-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00854-PHX (HRH) CV 04-00856-PHX (HRH) CV 04-01374-PHX (HRH) CV 04-01898-PHX (HRH) CV 04-01899-PHX (HRH) CV 04-02040-PHX (HRH) CV 03-02180-PCT (HRH) CV 04-00181-PCT (HRH) CV 04-00194-PCT (HRH) CV 04-00841-PCT (HRH) CV 04-00846-PCT (HRH) CV 04-00044-TUC (HRH) CV 04-00045-TUC (HRH) CV 04-1153-TUC (HRH) CV 04-00202-TUC (HRH) CV 04-00203-TUC (HRH) CV 04-00204-TUC (HRH) CV 04-00205-TUC (HRH) CV 04-00207-TUC (HRH))
Summary: 344 F. Supp. CV 03-00967-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00968-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00971-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00972-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00973-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00976-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00977-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00978-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00981-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00982-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00989-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00993-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00999-PHX (HRH); CV 03-01002-PHX (HRH); CV 03-01774-PHX (HRH); CV 03-01776-PHX (HRH); CV 03-01794-PHX (HRH); CV 03-02147-PHX (HRH); CV 03-02181-PHX (HRH); CV 03-02182-PHX (HRH); CV 03-02450-PHX (HRH); CV more.

Summary: 395 F. Supp. Lead Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10(b)-5 thereunder when they failed to publicly disclose a report from the Department of Education that seriously criticized the University of Phoenix's ("UOP") compensation system for its enrollment recruiters. Defendants were aware of and possessed the report as early as February 2004 but did not publicly disclose the report until September 2004. Lead more.

Summary: 55 F. Supp. United States v. $191,910 in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d 1051, 1071 (9th Cir.1994). 1995); United States v. $5,644,540 in U.S. Currency, 799 F.2d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. United States v. U.S. Currency, $30,060, 39 F.3d 1039, 1041 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting $5,644,540 in U.S. Currency, 799 F.2d at 1362); $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d at 1071. United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 122 F.3d 1285, 1289 (9th Cir.1997) (citations omitted). See United States v. $215,300 U.S. Currency, more.

Summary: 95 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (2000) Howard Paul GREENWALT, Plaintiff, v. SUN WEST FIRE DISTRICT, an Arizona Fire District, et al., Defendants. On May 29, 1998, Plaintiff Howard Paul Greenwalt ("Plaintiff") brought this action against his former employer, Sun City West Fire District (the "Fire District" or "Defendant") and Donald F. Johnston, in the Maricopa Superior Court, alleging violation of due process, (Count One) (Compl.śś 25-31); violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (Count Two) (Compl.śś 32-39); public more.

Summary: 721 F. Supp. state law claims of wrongful termination in violation of public policy, wrongful termination in violation of plaintiff's implied-in-fact contract rights, and wrongful termination in breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising out of plaintiff's employment relationship with defendant. Accordingly, only defendant's requests for partial summary judgment on count two (2), the wrongful termination in violation of plaintiff's implied-in-fact employment contract more.

Summary: 598 F. Supp. 1155 (1984) Walter WICK and Robert Wick, dba Green Valley News and Sun, Plaintiffs, v. TUCSON NEWSPAPER, INC.; Star Publishing Company; and Citizen Publishing Company, Defendants. This matter has come on before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (as to Count III of the Complaint) and for Permanent Injunction, and on Defendants' request for a Rule 56(d) finding. Defendants, Arizona Daily Star and the Tucson Citizen are daily newspapers sold *1157 and more.