§Why CasetextPricing

United States of America v. Colorado City, Town of et al

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

16 Cited authorities

  1. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore

    439 U.S. 322 (1979)   Cited 4,249 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

  2. Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc.

    442 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 1,559 times
    Holding that the district court's "approval of the settlement constituted a final judgment on the merits"

  3. Collins v. Horton

    505 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 202 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding there to be no manifest error where there was no binding precedent on point

  4. Appling v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    340 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 146 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[n]on-disclosure, or perjury by a party or witness, does not, by itself, amount to fraud on the court"

  5. Syverson v. Intnl. Business Machines

    472 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 119 times
    Finding a judgment "sufficiently 'final' even though there are to be further proceedings on remand on the merits"

  6. Kamilche Co. v. U.S.

    53 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 53 times
    Holding "[c]ollateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, bars the litigation of issues actually adjudicated in previous litigation between the same parties"

  7. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc.

    897 F. Supp. 2d 939 (N.D. Cal. 2012)   Cited 10 times
    Finding Nos. 138-42

  8. Canady v. Prescott Canyon Est. Homeowners Assn

    204 Ariz. 91 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 13 times

    No. 1 CA-CV 02-0138 November 26, 2002 As Amended and Redesignated as Opinion December 20, 2002 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CV 00-013941, the Honorable Colleen McNally, Judge, REVERSED AND REMANDED. Arizona Center for Disability Law Phoenix by Julianne H. Carter, Attorneys for Appellants James A. Simmons Prescott, Attorney for Appellees EHRLICH, Judge ¶ 1 Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners Association, its board of directors and its president (collectively "Association")

  9. U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Comm'n v. Am. Bullion Exch. Abex Corp.

    Case No.: SACV 10-01876 DOC(RNBx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    Case No.: SACV 10-01876 DOC(RNBx) 08-07-2014 U.S. COMMODITIES FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN BULLION EXCHANGE ABEX CORP., ET AL., Defendants. DAVID O. CARTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [257] [269] Before the Court is the motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 257) filed by Plaintiff United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") against Defendant Ryan A. Nassbridges and Relief Defendants. After considering the moving

  10. McCoy v. Foss Maritime Co.

    442 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (W.D. Wash. 2006)   Cited 2 times

    No. C04-2233L. May 31, 2006. Jeffery Michael Campiche, Campiche, Hepburn, Mccarty Bianco, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff. Elizabeth Lynn Hubbard, Anna E. Johansson, Garvey Schubert Barer, Seattle, WA, for Defendant. ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE LASNIK, District Judge. I. Introduction This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's "Motion In Limine Based on the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel" (Dkt. # 17). Plaintiff Tommy McCoy is a chief engineer for the Foss Maritime Company ("Foss"). McCoy argues

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 330,074 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 3601 - Declaration of policy

    42 U.S.C. § 3601   Cited 4,012 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Stating the FHA is intended to provide “fair housing throughout the United States”

  13. Section 3612 - Enforcement by Secretary

    42 U.S.C. § 3612   Cited 565 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing fee entitlement only for "plaintiffs"

  14. Section 14141 - Transferred

    42 U.S.C. § 14141   Cited 271 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing Attorney General to investigate and, if warranted, file civil litigation to eliminate a “pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers . . . that deprives persons of right, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States”

  15. Section 41-1491.35 - Pattern or practice cases

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1491.35   Cited 6 times

    A. The attorney general may file a civil action in superior court for appropriate relief if the attorney general has reasonable cause to believe that either: 1. A person is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any right granted by this article. 2. A person has been denied any right granted by this article and that denial raises an issue of general public importance. B. In an action under this section the court may: 1. Award preventive relief, including a permanent

  16. Section 41-1491.34 - Civil action by attorney general

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1491.34

    A. If the attorney general finds cause to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur, and there is no conciliation agreement within thirty days, the attorney general shall immediately file a civil action on behalf of the complainant in superior court against the respondent. B. If the attorney general finds reasonable cause to believe that a party has breached a conciliation agreement, the attorney general shall file a civil action for enforcement of the agreement