Summary
recognizing that "there is much confusion surrounding the distinction between the doctrine of standing and the principle of the real party in interest" and explaining why, in a case involving similar circumstances as this one, the issue was properly understood as one of the real party in interest, not standing
Summary of this case from Larsen v. Selmet, Inc.Opinion
MARCH 19, 2001
No. 00-972. CONTEMPORARY MEDIA, INC., ET AL. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL. C.A. D.C. Cir. certiorari denied. Reported below: 214 F.3d 187.
No. 00-995. PIZZA HUT, INC. v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL INC., ET AL. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 227 F.3d 489.
No. 00-1020. BOROFF v. VAN WERT CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. C.A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 220 F.3d 465.
No. 00-1027. TRACY v. BAPTIST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. C.A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 230 F.3d 1360.
No. 00-1071. CARRERAS-ROSA v. ALVES-CRUZ ET AL. C.A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 215 F.3d 1311.
No. 00-1076. TUNSTALL, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER MOTHER, TUNSTALL, ET AL. v. BERGESON, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF WASHINGTON, ET AL. Sup.Ct. wash. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 141 Wn.2d 201, 5 P.3d 691.
No. 00-1108. ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING v. CITY OF EAST LANSING. Sup.Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 463 Mich. 17, 614 N.W.2d 634.
No. 00-1110. ELAMIR ET AL. v. MEGNET RESOURCES, INC. Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.
No. 00-1116. DAVIS v. NICHOLS ET AL. C.A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 230 F.3d 1362.
No. 00-1119. CRYSEN/MONTENAY ENERGY CO. v. SHELL OIL CO. ET AL. C.A.2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 226 F.3d 160.
No. 00-1122. B. C. ROGERS PROCESSORS, INC., ET AL. v. BOC GROUP, INC., ET AL. C.A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. reported below: 229 F.3d 1321.
No. 00-1123. FEIST ET AL. v. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORP. C.A.3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 216 F.3d 1075.