5002 search results for query *

Summary: 685 F. Supp. at 2734 n. 16; Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 499-502 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. Hughes v. Blankenship, 672 F.2d 403, 406 (4th Cir.1982). [11] The Fourth Circuit first addressed the issue Martinez left open in Fox v. Custis, 712 F.2d 84 (4th Cir.1983). 712 F.2d at 88 (quoting Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir.1982)). See Galanti v. United States, 709 F.2d 706, 710 (11th Cir.1983), cert. 2d 683 (1984); Miller v. United States, 561 F. Supp. In Staton v. United States, 685 F.2d 117 more.

Summary: 7 F. Supp. 2d 635 (1998) INTELUS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Bernard H. BARTON, and MedPlus, Inc., Defendants. Bernard H. Barton agrees that he will not, either during or after his employment with INTELUS, disclose any confidential information or materials of INTELUS, to any person or entity for any reason or purpose, unless INTELUS shall have given its written consent to such disclosure. Bernard H. Barton further agrees that he shall not use in any manner other than for and in the course of his more.

Summary: 21 F. Supp. The question now presented is the same as that decided by this court in Berlin v. Travelers Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, 18 F. Supp. Co., 21 F. Supp.

Summary: 119 F. Supp. Trandes Corp. v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 996 F.2d 655, 659 (4th Cir.1993). In Rosciszewski v. Arete Assocs., Inc., 1 F.3d 225, 233 (4th Cir.1993), the Fourth Circuit found that the Copyright Act preempted certain claims asserted in state court and that removal of the case to federal court was proper. We look to federal law to determine whether the elements of removal jurisdiction have been established under the statutes ...." Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th more.

Summary: 471 F. Supp. Ibarra v. United States, 120 F.3d 472, 473 (4th Cir.1997); Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir.1993). Corp., 329 F. Supp. See First Commercial Bank, N.A. v. Walker, 333 Ark. 100, 109, 969 S.W.2d 146, 150 (1998) (sole shareholder lacked standing to bring claim for tortious interference with the company's contracts); Fineman v. Armstrong World Industries, 980 F.2d 171, (3d Cir.1992)(tortious interference claim of entrepreneur failed as a matter of law when he more.

Summary: 416 F. Supp. Jurisdiction has been asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and under 5 U.S.C. §§ 701, et seq.[3] Section 218(a) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 418(a),[4] authorizes the Secretary to enter into an agreement with any state for the purpose of extending Social Security coverage to state and local governmental employees. In 1951, the State of Maryland and the Secretary's predecessor, the Federal Security Administrator, executed an agreement more.

Summary: 605 F. Supp. 981 (1985) Judith R. BURKE and James W. Burke and Brett M. Grossetta, an infant, by his mother and next friend, Judith R. Burke v. UNITED STATES of America. Although Dr. Davis has no specific recollection of the *985 April 20, 1981 biopsy, Mrs. Burke testified that he told her that he did not remove the entire mass but did remove a sufficient amount for examination in the hospital's anatomical pathology division. On November 12, 1982, Mrs. Burke and her husband were told by Dr. more.

Summary: 12 F. Supp. Mayor Robert W. Werge ("Werge") confirmed the offer of employment by letter dated November 12, 1992. On December 20, 1994, Lieutenant Stephen S. Bacon ("Bacon"), who was Carroll's supervisor and the highest ranking member of the police department at the time,[1] completed Carroll's annual performance appraisal and recommended her termination to the Town Council. On January 31, 1994, Carroll's attorney wrote a letter to the Town's attorney alleging that the extension of Carroll's more.

Summary: 999 F. Supp. This Title VII same-sex sexual harassment case is before the Court on Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or for new trial, and on Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees. Ford v. Rigidply Rafters, Inc., 984 F. Supp. Defendants advance a two-pronged attack on the jury's verdict, contending that Plaintiff failed to prove that Defendants retaliated against him because he has no claim of same-sex sexual harassment under Fourth Circuit case law, and that Plaintiff more.

Summary: 201 F. Supp. Co. v. Cameo Properties, 810 F.2d 1282, 1286 (4th Cir.1987); Morrison v. Nissan Motor Co., 601 F.2d 139, 141 (4th Cir. 1979); Stevens v. Howard D. Johnson Co., 181 F.2d 390, 394 (4th Cir.1950). 56(c); Pulliam, 810 F.2d at 1286 (citing Charbonnages de France v. Smith, 597 F.2d 406, 414 (4th Cir.1979)). Tinsley v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 155 F.3d 435, 437 (4th Cir. Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946, 958-59 *519 (4th Cir.1984) (quoting Seago v. North Carolina Theatres, Inc., 42 more.

Summary: 261 F. Supp. Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir.1990). Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir.1966); accord Shively v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 987, 989 (4th Cir.1984). Hays, 907 F.2d at 1456. Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir.1995). In May 1997, Dr. Lichtenstein completed a Medical Assessment of Ability To Do Work-Related Activities (Physical) in which he concluded that as a result of lower back pain, joint pain and swelling in her legs, back and arms caused by her more.

Summary: 432 F. Supp. The statute provides in pertinent part: A juvenile alleged to have committed an act of juvenile delinquency shall not be proceeded against in any court of the United States unless the Attorney General, after investigation, certifies to an appropriate district court of the United States that the juvenile court or other appropriate court of a State (1) does not have jurisdiction or refuses to assume jurisdiction over said juvenile with respect to such alleged act of juvenile more.

Summary: 250 F. Supp. 2d 544 (2003) Alan MEYER, Trustee for Paul D. Meyer, M.D., P.A. Money Purchase Pension Plan and Trust, et al. v. BERKSHIRE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY No. Plaintiffs Alan Meyer[1] and Jorge R. Ordonez ("Plaintiffs" or "Doctors" or *548 "Trustees") allege that defendant Berkshire Life Insurance Company ("Defendant" or "Berkshire") mismanaged their pension fund.[2] Following the court's summary judgment order, only Count V of the plaintiffs' amended complaint, which asserts damages for more.

Summary: 448 F. Supp. Donna F. Solen, Victoria S. Nugent, Whitney R. Case, Andrew N. Friedman, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, Washington, DC, Lee S. Shalov, Shalov, Stone and Bonner LLP, New York City, for Plaintiffs. [9] On September 30, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a three count Amended Complaint: Count I: breach of contract Count II: breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing Count III: breach of fiduciary duty Defendants ask the Court to dismiss Counts II and III for failure more.

Summary: 420 F. Supp. Second, the defendant argues that, notwithstanding the authority offered by the Government, under binding Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit jurisprudence, a police officer can only make a warrantless misdemeanor arrest consonant with the Fourth Amendment if the crime is committed in the officer's presence. Publishers Res., Inc. v. Walker-Davis Publ'ns, Inc., 762 F.2d 557, 561 (7th Cir.1985) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Holland v. Big River Minerals Corp., 181 more.

Summary: 37 F.2d 355 (1929) In re EASTERN TRANSP. December 26, 1929. The proceeding follows the institution of a suit in the court of common pleas of Baltimore city by the administratrix of the estate of the master of the barge Calvert, who, together with his wife and three infant children, was drowned when the barge foundered in Chesapeake Bay under the following circumstances: On the evening of May 16, 1928, the master of the tug Denhardt made up a tow off Sparrows Point, Maryland, consisting of the more.

Summary: 306 F. Supp. I. With respect to Keeney's first set of claims, that Defendants, in several instances, falsely represented that RailWorks had successfully integrated its acquired companies, Defendants argue that Keeney fails to meet the heightened pleading requirements of § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and that, even if these allegations are legally sufficient, they do not constitute false statements or omissions of material fact. Litig., 219 F. Supp. LLC, 254 F. Supp. Corp. v. Procopio, 217 F. Supp. more.

Summary: 622 F. Supp. Defendant Rodenberg argues that the writ of attachment should be denied on three separate bases: (1) plaintiff has not shown that attachment would serve the purpose of the Maryland statute and has not shown that the defendant has attempted to dispose of, conceal, or remove his assets as required by the Maryland statute; (2) plaintiff has not demonstrated a prima facie case of indebtedness as required by the Maryland statute; and (3) this Court lacks the jurisdiction to issue a writ more.

Summary: 500 F. Supp. 1095 (1980) John B. ANDERSON; D. A. Bert Booth; Kevin P. McCleaf; Gerald M. Eisenstat v. Willard A. MORRIS, State Administrator of the Election Laws; Theodore N. Clark, Chairman of the State Administrative Board of Election Laws; James W. Johnson, Vice-Chairman of the State Administrative Board of Election Laws; Reginald A. Asplen, Member of the State Administrative Board of Election Laws; Karen Lancaster, Member of the State Administrative Board of Election Laws; Sylvia Raphael, more.

Summary: 723 F. Supp. They rely on DeFord v. Secretary of Labor, 700 F.2d 281, 290-91 (6th Cir.1983); Lawrence v. United States, 631 F. Supp. 631, 636-37 (E.D.Pa.1982); Newman v. Legal Services Corp., 628 F. Supp. 535, 543 (D.D.C.1986); and Sullivan v. United States, 428 F. Supp. See, e.g., Heilman, 731 F.2d at 1111 n. 6; Burke v. United States, 644 F. Supp. 566 (E.D.La.1986); Dunn v. United States, 516 F. Supp.