8 Cited authorities

Environmental Defense Fund v. Marsh
651 F.2d 983 (5th Cir. 1981) Cited 430 times
Holding that "any separate claim that defendants are not complying with FWCA is merged with and subsumed by [the plaintiffs' claim in those counts based in NEPA"
Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Com'n
125 F.3d 1062 (7th Cir. 1997) Cited 107 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an amicus brief should be allowed when the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond that the lawyers or the parties are able to provide
United States v. AMC Entertainment, Inc.
549 F.3d 760 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 74 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding ADA regulation did not provide fair notice where agencies failed to provide clear direction and the phrase at issue was ambiguous and lacked a concrete meaning
Halo Wireless, Inc. v. Alenco Commc'ns, Inc. (In re Halo Wireless, Inc.)
684 F.3d 581 (5th Cir. 2012) Cited 53 times
Holding that lawsuit originally commenced by private actors could continue pursuant to the "police power" exception of the automatic stay
U.S. v. Ahmed
788 F. Supp. 196 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) Cited 52 times
Holding that " rejection of defendant's claims under [recusal] sections 144 and 455 ' a fortiori defeats his due process allegations.'"
U.S. v. OLIS
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-07-3295, CRIMINAL NUMBER H-03-217-01 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2008) Cited 2 times
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-07-3295, CRIMINAL NUMBER H-03-217-01. March 3, 2008 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SIM LAKE, District Judge On October 5, 2007, defendant, Jamie Olis, filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Docket Entry No. 305 in Crim. No. H-03-217), and a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Olis' Motion to Set Aside His Conviction Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2295 (Docket Entry No. 315). Pending before the court
New England, Etc. v. University of Colorado
592 F.2d 1196 (1st Cir. 1979) Cited 29 times
In New England Patriots Football Club, Inc. v. University of Colorado, 592 F.2d 1196 (1st Cir. 1979), the Patriots attempted to enjoin the University of Colorado from employing a football coach who had been working for the Patriots.
Rule 29 - Brief of an Amicus Curiae
Fed. R. App. P. 29 Cited 297 times 10 Legal Analyses
Stating that a motion for leave must indicate "the movant’s interest" and "the reason why an amicus brief is desirable and why the matters asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case"

State of Texas, et al. v. United States of America, et al.

8 Cited authorities

Holding that "any separate claim that defendants are not complying with FWCA is merged with and subsumed by [the plaintiffs' claim in those counts based in NEPA"

Holding that an amicus brief should be allowed when the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond that the lawyers or the parties are able to provide

Finding ADA regulation did not provide fair notice where agencies failed to provide clear direction and the phrase at issue was ambiguous and lacked a concrete meaning

Holding that lawsuit originally commenced by private actors could continue pursuant to the "police power" exception of the automatic stay

Holding that " rejection of defendant's claims under [recusal] sections 144 and 455 ' a fortiori defeats his due process allegations.'"

In New England Patriots Football Club, Inc. v. University of Colorado, 592 F.2d 1196 (1st Cir. 1979), the Patriots attempted to enjoin the University of Colorado from employing a football coach who had been working for the Patriots.

Stating that a motion for leave must indicate "the movant’s interest" and "the reason why an amicus brief is desirable and why the matters asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case"