2814 search results for query *

Summary: 351 F. Supp. The Attorney General here alleges that the 1972 Georgia House reapportionment plan[1] was rejected by the Attorney General under Section 5 within the required 60-day statutory period and asks that this three-judge court, convened pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 2284, enjoin the State from proceeding to hold elections under the current reapportionment plan. In 1971, the State of Georgia reapportioned its Congressional, State Senate and State House districts and presented its proposed plans more.

Summary: 189 B.R. 222 (1995) In re Clyde Lawayne LATTA, Debtor. Howard W. JONES, Trustee in Bankruptcy, Appellant, v. Clyde Lawayne LATTA and Lockheed Basic Benefit Plan for Hourly Employees, and Lockheed Hourly Employee Savings Plan Plus, Appellees. Albert Floyd Burkhalter, Jr., Burkhalter & Stephens, Rome, GA, for Clyde Lawayne Latta. I. BACKGROUND Clyde Lawayne Latta ("the Debtor") filed a bankruptcy petition seeking a Chapter 7 discharge. He also sought to deny the Debtor a discharge because the more.

Summary: 631 F. Supp. 1498 (1986) Nancy Katherine YOUNG v. CITY OF ATLANTA; H.L. Tucker, Individually and as a Police Officer; A.J. Ferguson, Individually and as a Police Officer; Jane Doe, Individually and as a Police Officer. In this action arising from her arrest for traffic offenses, Plaintiff asserts causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as pendent state claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and false more.

Summary: 582 F. Supp. 425 (1984) Aldine M. MAYS, M.D. v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY OF HENRY COUNTY; James P. Brown; Otis Bellamy; G.R. Foster, Jr., M.D.; A.A. Maliza; Geraldine W. Helton; Robert Engeman; Gene Morris; Russell L. Eaton, individually and as members of The Board of Trustees of the Hospital Authority of Henry County; V. Stephen Cole, individually and as Administrator of Henry General Hospital; Southside Radiological Services, P.C.; Steven Clines, M.D.; Gordon Goldstein, M.D.; Peter Phillips, M.D.; more.

Summary: 20 B.R. 997 (1982) Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. TMC INDUSTRIES, LTD.; WWG Industries, Inc.; Commercial Affiliates, Inc.; and Chemical Bank of New York, Inc., Defendants. *998 Bobbye D. Spears, Regional Sol., Dept. of Labor, Glenn M. Embree and A.B. Cuviello, Atlanta, Ga., for the Secretary of Labor. I TMC Industries, Ltd. (TMC) is a holding company whose assets include 80 percent of the stock of WWG Industries, Inc. (WWG). Commercial more.

Summary: 475 F. Supp. In opposing Smith's request, Wal-Mart relies upon AutoZone, Inc. v. Tandy Corp., 373 F.3d 786, 794-95 (6th Cir.2004), where the Sixth Circuit explained that the "unit of analysis in considering the strength of the mark is the entire mark, not just a portion of the mark." While Smith acknowledges that AutoZone undercuts his position, he cites to other cases that suggest a different approach, including Petro Stopping Centers, L.P. v. James River Petroleum Inc., 130 F.3d 88 (4th more.

Summary: 496 F. Supp. 1178 (1980) WEST POINT-PEPPERELL, INC., Plaintiff, v. F. Ray MARSHALL, Secretary of Labor et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a textile manufacturer, seeks an injunction restraining execution of an administrative search warrant which authorizes the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to conduct an inspection at plaintiff's Lindale, Georgia mill. This case presents, inter alia, the novel question of whether probable cause for the issuance of an administrative search warrant to more.

Summary: 620 F. Supp. 293 (1985) Simone PENA and Denise Pena, b/n/f Jesus Pena, and Jesus Pena, Plaintiffs v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF The CITY OF ATLANTA, Carolyn Crowder, Preston W. Williams, Joseph G. Martin, Jr., Richard E. Raymer, D.F. Glover, Robert Waymer, June Cofer, Ina Evans, Carolyn D. Yancey, Individually and in their official capacity as members of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta, Alonzo A. Crim, Individually and in his capacity as Superintendent of the Atlanta Public Schools, J. more.

Summary: 350 F. Supp. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to credit on the federal sentence he is now serving for the "dead time" he spent in presentence state custody and in serving his invalid state (West Virginia) sentence. No credit may be allowed on a federal sentence for time spent in state or local custody for exclusively nonfederal purposes, Rodriguez v. United States, 405 F.2d 857 (5th Cir.

Summary: 748 F. Supp. 874 (1990) Bernee CARGILE, Plaintiff, v. CONFEDERATION LIFE INSURANCE GROUP PLANS and John Ector, Defendants. Defendants filed their summary judgment motion on January 10, 1990, arguing that plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and that under the appropriate standard of review, the court could not disturb defendants' decision to deny plaintiff's claim. While the Motion was pending, the Eleventh Circuit decided Brown v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc., more.

Summary: 416 F. Supp. C75-1029A, 416 F. Supp. EEOC v. C & D Sportswear, 398 F. Supp. This conclusion follows implicitly from the Fifth Circuit's decision in EEOC v. Louisville & Nashville R.R., 505 F.2d 610 (5th Cir. In reviewing the statutory scheme as set out in § 706(f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), the court noted that three specific time limitations were provided at various stages in the procedure: (1) the Commission must wait 30 days from the filing of a charge before instituting more.

Summary: 360 F. Supp. Specifically, plaintiff contends that the termination of her disability benefits without sufficient notice and without a pre-termination oral evidentiary hearing deprives her of her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. On September 14, 1971, while checking out a different claim filed by plaintiff, the Vocational Rehabilitation Division of the Georgia Department of Human Resources [the "State Agency"][1] made a determination on the basis of record evidence that plaintiff's more.

Summary: 31 F. Supp. See also Jaffe v. Boyles, 616 F. Supp. See Mutuelles Unies v. Kroll & Linstrom, 957 F.2d 707, 711 (9th Cir.1992); Dullard v. Berkeley Assoc. Co., 606 F.2d 890, 893 (2d Cir.1979); Jackson v. Heiser, 111 F.2d 310, 312 (9th Cir.1940); Galaxy Inv. 1371, 1374-75 (W.D.N.Y.1985); Niccum v. Northern Assur., Co., 17 F.2d 160, 163 (D.C.Ind.1927); see also China Nuclear Energy Industry Corp. v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, 11 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1258 (D.Colo.1998); Lavan Petroleum Co. v. Underwriters more.

Summary: 308 F. Supp. This lawsuit involves a claim of trademark infringement and unfair competition filed by Plaintiff Howard Stores Corporation against Defendant Howard Clothing, Inc. Pursuant to its policy of active expansion plaintiff in 1969 leased certain real estate on Broad Street, Atlanta, Georgia, for the purpose of opening in that city a *72 business under the name "Howard Clothes" for the sale of men's and boys' clothing.

Summary: 391 F. Supp. From June 4, 1971 through October 10, 1972, Amchem submitted data in support of its application for the required residue tolerance.From July 17, 1970, until September 29, 1972, Amchem submitted data in support of its petition for registration under *126 FIFRA. It is also uncontested that the Administrator could not properly have registered Cepha on the basis of GAF's application alone and that information in the Ethrel file was in fact considered in ruling on GAF's application for more.

Summary: 683 F. Supp. This action is before the court on defendant's motion to stay the action and for referral to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC).2d 126 (1956); Mercury Motor Express, Inc. v. Brinke, 475 F.2d 1086, 1091-92 (5th Cir.1973). "Mercury Motor, 475 F.2d at 1092 (citation omitted).

Summary: 370 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (2004) Eileen HAMALL-DESAI, Plaintiff, v. FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE COMPANY and Alumax Group Long Term Disability Insurance Plan,[1] Defendants. This action alleging wrongful denial of disability insurance benefits, failure to disclose, breach of fiduciary duty, and interference with other employment benefit plans is before the court on (a) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 69]; (d) Joint Motion of Plaintiff and Dr. Robert C. Porter, MD and Network Medical more.

Summary: 441 F. Supp. The test adopted by the Fifth Circuit as to the proper scope of a complaint alleging Title VII violations was the test first embraced in King v. Georgia Power Company, 295 F. Supp. Similarly, Jiron v. Sperry Rand Corp., 423 F. Supp.

Summary: 374 F. Supp. The plaintiff purchased seven (7) lots from the defendants, Great Northern Development Co. (hereinafter referred to as "Great Northern") and its subsidiary, Treasure Lake of Georgia, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Treasure Lake"), in a recreational land development in Carroll and Douglas Counties, Georgia, for investment purposes.