Documents

Oral argument — Flying J, Inc. v. Thomas Pistacchio

Oral argument · Oral argument · Oct 8, 2009

There was no finding that Lawson was clean or that any of this other stuff was acceptable. And it's ‑‑ you know, I've read that decision over 50 times. … She acted appropriately and she acted well. And with 25 seconds left, if the Court has any further questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you very much.

Oral argument — United States v. Cesar Almonte

Oral argument · Oral argument · Oct 3, 2025

And they tried to clean it up by stating that it was a Rule 12 violation and it wasn't brought to the court's attention, although venue was challenged pre-trial. … The District Court correctly denied Gomez-Almonte's speedy trial clause and venue-related motions, and its inquiry into the jury after learning about a comment about defense counsel was not an abuse of

Oral argument — United States v. Williams

Oral argument · Oral argument · Jun 1, 2026

They didn't come up with that language out of thin air. … Her final comments sort of are consequentialist ones, but still, you wouldn't think the commission would hide a revision that will suddenly disqualify what she counted as 26 states prior felons.

Oral argument — Paris v. Brown

Oral argument · Oral argument · Aug 21, 2025

Not based solely on the warrant, but based off of his wrongful acts that led to the warrant. … I appreciate your comments. Okay. There are two minutes for rebuttal for amicus counsel. Thank you, Judge Callahan. Three quick points.

Oral argument — United States v. Martinez

Oral argument · Oral argument · May 4, 2023

There was no violation under the Speedy Trial Act because the act was told when the district court entered an ends-of-justice continuance on December 13, 2019. … So, based on that, the district court neither clearly aired nor abused its discretion in denying that motion to dismiss. If there are no further questions about that, I'll move to the next argument.

Oral argument — People v. Hopkins

Oral argument · Oral argument · Apr 25, 2012

They supposedly heard this within a reasonable time period. None of them came forward and said anything. What is a reasonable time period under Chambers? Well, I don't really know. … But the two time periods that I have here are 4-11 or 4-12, and sometime in August, whenever that is.

Oral argument — In re Civil Union of Hamlin

Oral argument · Oral argument · Mar 4, 2015

Why not make it just very simple and very clean? It applies to civil unions that are in existence when Illinois recognizes civil unions. Why not just apply that? … No, it does not, because it's a separate section of the Civil Union Act. It's not at issue here. Don't we read all the provisions of the Act in period material to determine the intent of the Act?

Oral argument — Levart v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Oral argument · Oral argument · Aug 23, 2017

acts. … Again, it is the plaintiff or appellant's position here that, in light of the prior criminal acts, as well as the surrounding circumstances that can be taken into consideration under Comment F of Section

Oral argument — United States v. Okello Chatrie

Oral argument · Oral argument · Jan 30, 2025

I use opt-in and basically air quotes. Right. … I think, actually, because of the Stored Communications Act, probably not. The Stored Communications Act limits the scope of what the government can get pursuant to a subpoena.

Oral argument — United States v. Bryant

Oral argument · Oral argument · Apr 19, 2016

But if he hasn't raised it here, are you suggesting by reserving it in this case that on remand that issue could be aired? … So why can't you raise the sentence on the ground that there is a valid conviction, period, end of the case, which is, I think, what Nichols said.

Oral argument — Johnson v. Illinois State Police

Oral argument · Oral argument · Nov 19, 2019

It's specifically misdemeanors, misdemeanors who serve some period incarcerated, although in county jail and not in the Department of Corrections. … The actual basis for coming up with this three-rights-only view on civil rights restorative was the Sixth Circuit literally plucking it out of thin air in 1989.

Oral argument — American Hospital Association v. Alex M. Azar II

Oral argument · Oral argument · May 4, 2018

I thought your point is that when you're acting under 14, you're necessarily acting under 2. Yes, Your Honor. I'm sorry if I misspoke. … And here, the Secretary clearly was acting, and said he was acting, under Paragraph 14, not Paragraph 2.

Oral argument — Checkmate Staffing, Inc. v. Diversified Paratransit, Inc.

Oral argument · Oral argument · Oct 9, 2009

I would note that Your Honor's comments relative to the evidentiary presentation in this case are directly on point. … During the period of time, this was from April of 2002 to November of 2003 is the period of breach that they're talking about, the lack of coverage. In December of 2003...

Oral argument — Porio v. Barbari

Oral argument · Oral argument · Apr 20, 2026

Was that consistent or inconsistent with what the Practice Act would have required anyway? The Practice Act prohibited the intake nurse from making a diagnosis. … Venters, for a significant period of time as to his opinion that she should have referred him to a higher level of care and did not hear any testimony.

Oral argument — Carter v. Barnhart

Oral argument · Oral argument · Jul 18, 2008

In terms of several times you commented that the claimant got better, I want to say that the early evidence in the record, a number of times plaintiff was found to have, by one consultative examiner, no … Again, the district court determined that no, the ALJ acted consistently with its remand order, and the district court has the discretion to determine whether the ALJ acted in accordance with that order

Oral argument — United States v. Faisal Ashraf

Oral argument · Oral argument · Feb 14, 2023

You can confer and then make it a clean decision. And then for whatever reason, I assume because Mr. Ashraf's counsel said to him, don't withdraw the plea. … I think he has to show, because we always assume that judges, including the district court, are acting reasonably. That's a basic tenet for appellate review, right?

Oral argument — Nutt v. United States

Oral argument · Oral argument · Apr 6, 2016

The government in this case is trying to distinguish Massey by saying, well, this is a Federal Tort Claims Act case. That was a Military Claims Act case and there's a difference. … The government's taken inconsistent positions over the periodic payments. They've asked for a revisionary trust. The Federal Tort Claims Act clearly allows for it.

Oral argument — City & County of S.F. v. USCIS

Oral argument · Oral argument · Sep 15, 2020

conjecture about this could act this way. … For example, the 2002 Farm Bill, which allowed non-citizen children to get SNAP without a waiting period or the 2010 Landmark Affordable Care Act, which greatly expanded access to Medicaid for working

Oral argument — +Fuji Photo Film v. ITC

Oral argument · Oral argument · Oct 5, 2006

Jazz and others were committing acts during the period of stay that were not covered by the stay. You were asking for clarification of the scope of the exclusion order? … With respect to the exclusion I it would appropriate to a comment on that. I think it would be appropriate to make a comment on that. I think it to make a comment on that.

Oral argument — Kenneth Wells and Sons v. Blackburn and Green

Oral argument · Oral argument · Feb 23, 2021

She responded, KWS itself really has not commented on anything to me, other than me just letting them know. … Graham, may I ask you to clarify your comment?