1165 search results for query *

Summary: 57 F. Supp. The basic question to be determined is the cost of certain patent rights acquired by the plaintiff upon which the amortized depreciation is allowed, and in addition the question of whether the plaintiff is chargeable with the sum of $3,228.40 added by the revenue department to plaintiff's income for the year 1937, which was collected and retained by the Ludlow Typograph Company of Illinois under certain written contracts with the plaintiff. Since the term of seventeen years runs more.

Summary: 337 F. Supp. The trailer of said motor vehicle was loaded with certain steel products manufactured by the plaintiff, and the motor vehicle was being driven in a Northerly direction along U. S. Highway 81 in Pierce County, Nebraska, upon the right half of said highway in a careful and prudent manner and at a reasonable rate of speed. It is alleged that when plaintiff's aforesaid motor vehicle arrived at a point upon the highway, approximately four-tenths of a mile North of mile post No. 166 on more.

Summary: 654 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Carlos ALAMILLA-HERNANDEZ, Defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOSEPH F. BATAILLON, Chief Judge. This matter is before the court on the defendant's objections, Filing No. 42, to the report and recommendation ("R & R") of the magistrate judge, Filing No. 39, denying the defendant's motion to suppress evidence, Filing No. 23, and motion to suppress statements, Filing No. 29. United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600-01 (8th more.

Summary: 57 F. Supp. *837 David W. Rowe, Kinsey, Ridenour Law Firm, Lincoln, William S. Lerach, Alan Schulman, David R. Boyd, Milberg, Weiss Law Firm, San Diego, CA, Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Law Firm, Los Angeles, CA, Edward Toptani, Toptani Law Firm, New York City, Randall Steinmeyer, Randall H. Steinmeyer, Reinhardt & Anderson Law Firm, St. Paul, MN, Steven J. Toll, Kristopher A. Kinkade, Cohen, Milstein Law Firm, Seattle, WA, Robert I. Harwood, Daniella Quitt, Wechsler, Harwood Law Firm, New York more.

Summary: 346 F. Supp. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction ordering defendant to comply with the provisions of Article IX of the Collective Bargaining Agreement in existence between the plaintiff and defendant corporation, and specifically, with the award of the National Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes which award assigned the work in question to the bricklayers represented by plaintiff. Miami Beach Federal Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Callander, 256 F.2d 410 (5th Cir.1958); more.

Summary: 355 F. Supp. Robert F. Kokrda, Assistant United States Attorney, Frederick D. Franklin, Assistant United States Attorney, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff. This sentencing hearing was continued in anticipation of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738, 160 L. Ed. I. BACKGROUND In Booker, the Supreme Court found that its holdings in Blakely v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 477, more.

Summary: 192 F. Supp. 2d 998 (2002) Douglas W. STAGEMEYER, individually and as parent and next friend; and Matthew D. Stagemeyer, by and through his parent and next friend, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF DAWSON, Nebraska; Kurt R. McBride, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy County Attorney of Dawson County, Nebraska; Elizabeth F. Waterman, individually and in her official capacity as County Attorney of Dawson County, Nebraska; Lt. Gregory L. Vandenberg, individually and in his official more.

Summary: 771 F. Supp. Also pending are Plaintiff Richard Rayes' ("Plaintiff") Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (filing no. 26) and Motion for Discovery (filing no. 27). The defendants thereafter filed the pending Motions to Terminate Consent Decree and Dismiss Case (filing no. 31) and also filed a Response to Plaintiff's Request for Temporary Restraining Order (filing no. 35) and an Objection to Motion for Discovery (filing no. 34). ANALYSIS I. Defendants' Motions to Terminate Consent Decree and more.

Summary: 204 F. Supp. 207 (1960) STATE SECURITIES COMPANY, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nebraska, Plaintiff, v. FEDERATED MUTUAL IMPLEMENT AND HARDWARE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota and admitted to do business in the State of Nebraska, Defendant. *208 Sterling F. Mutz, Lincoln, Neb., for plaintiff. F. B. Baylor, Baylor, Evnen, Baylor & Urbom, Lincoln, Neb., for defendant. Without exhaustive analysis, which, in the light of more.

Summary: 646 F. Supp. 713 (1986) F.P.P. ENTERPRISES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. I. BACKGROUND In this action, the named plaintiffs, F.P.P. Enterprises and D & S Trust seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendant from further actions of levy and restraint against property of the named plaintiffs, and seek recovery from the defendant of all amounts which have heretofore been improperly levied and distrained, together with taxable costs. In their amended complaint, more.

Summary: 486 F. Supp. Paul Allison, Inc. v. Minikin Storage of Omaha, Inc., 436 F. Supp. Paul Allison, Inc. v. Minikin Storage of Omaha, Inc., 452 F. Supp. Totem Marine Tug & Barge, Inc. v. North American Towing, Inc., 429 F. Supp. [1]*4 Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., supra, 541 F.2d at 1270; see also American Airlines, Inc. v. Louisville & Jefferson County Air Board, supra, 269 F.2d at 815-17. "It is the obvious policy of the Federal Arbitration Act to promote arbitration so that the more.

Summary: 415 F. Supp. At the time the events in this case transpired the plaintiff was the owner of certain land situated in Douglas County, Nebraska, and she has filed suit under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (1974) against the individual members of the Douglas County Board of Commissioners alleging that she has been deprived by them of her constitutional rights under color of state law. The matter was subsequently brought before the members of the Board of Commissioners on July 31st, 1973, and they voted to deny more.

Summary: 402 F. Supp. 19 U.S.C. § 482 (1965); United States v. Doe, 472 F.2d 982 (2nd Cir. 2d 691 (1973); Klein v. United States, 472 F.2d 847 (9th Cir. United States v. Diemler, 498 F.2d 1070 (5th Cir. 1975); United States v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, Schedule No. 896, 363 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (1967); United States v. McDonnell, 315 F. Supp. 1972); United States v. Fisher, 377 F. Supp.

Summary: 81 F. Supp. After No. 95-47 Civil was removed, counsel for plaintiff, apparently dubious as to the validity of the service therein, caused a new petition to be filed in the state court, and secured service thereunder upon a different party. Its contention in substance is that the defendant has not consented to this suit; has not appointed an agent to receive service of process in Nebraska; is not doing business in Nebraska, and that the state court could not maintain the action without more.

Summary: 331 F. Supp. The earlier opinion of this court, reported at 318 F. Supp. That this court was bound, upon applying the principles of res judicata, by the finding of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan of a valid class action in Gregory v. Hershey, D.C., 311 F. Supp. The reversal of the district court's decision in Gregory v. Hershey, 311 F. Supp.

Summary: 577 F. Supp. Plaintiff had been receiving monthly payments as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). The standards for the propriety of the issuance of a preliminary injunction in this action are set forth in Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C.L. Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir.1981). First, 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(7) was amended to read as follows: [e]xcept as may be otherwise provided in paragraph (8) or (31) and section 615 of this title, provide that the State agency— (A) shall, in more.

Summary: 763 F. Supp. Kirschke v. Lamar, 426 F.2d 870, 874 (8th Cir.1970). A rule applicable to this issue was announced by the Federal Circuit in Case v. CPC International, Inc., 730 F.2d 745 (Fed.Cir.)In that case, the plaintiff asked that testimony not presented to the board be barred in the district court in light of the Eighth Circuit rule that "a deliberate, intentional or willful withholding or suppression of pertinent and available evidence from the Patent Office ... justifies exclusion of such more.

Summary: 939 F. Supp. 1418 (1996) Lela K. WATTS, Plaintiff, v. BUTTE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 5, Jim Mellor, Ronnie Atkinson, Kathryn S. Reiman, Jack E. Moore, and Carol Liewer, Defendants. In the report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Piester recommends that the Court grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment (filing 30). [1] In the report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Piester concluded that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's first, second, and third more.