Documents

Amicus Curiae Brief — Matthew D. Sample, Petitioner v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Jan 14, 2019

Boccagna, 450 F.3d 107, 115 (2d Cir. 2006)) (cleaned up). In 2004, backed by near universal congressional support for a “broad and encompassing” statutory victims’ bill of rights, 150 Cong. … CVRA],” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b), and constrains the court’s ability to consider whether the victim’s interests in restitution in a particular case counsel against incarceration (or in favor of a shorter period

Amicus Curiae Brief — City of Boerne v. Flores

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1997

This latitude has allowed what this Court and commentators __ from all perspectives have commonly acknowledged as the “accommodation” of religion though “government laws or policies that have the purpose … Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986) that the First Amendment did not compel an exemption from military requirements for an Orthodox Jew who sought to wear his yarmulke with his Air Force uniform while on

Amicus Curiae Brief — Ivan Antonyuk, et al., Petitioners v. Steven G. James, In His Official Capacity as the Superintendent of the New York State Police, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Feb 26, 2025

Whether the proper historical time period for ascertaining the Second Amendment’s original meaning is 1791, rather than 1868. 2. … One commentator even advocated that “state legislatures and state attorney generals [sic] should defy the Court’s decision in Bruen . . . .” David L.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Johnson & Johnson, et al., Petitioners v. Gail L. Ingham, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Apr 5, 2021

petitioners and respondents received notice of amicus’ intent to file this brief more than ten days before the brief’s due date. 2 multi-plaintiff trials is serious, inherent, and welldocumented by courts and commentators … Stress Injury Litig., 21 11 F.3d 368, 373 (2d Cir. 1993) (requiring “close attention” to the “special underlying facts” bearing on consolidation “before ordering a consolidation” (citation omitted) (cleaned

Amicus Curiae Brief — New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurance

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1994

Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (1988). ‘passin Standard Oil of California v. … Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (1983).

Amicus Curiae Brief — Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2006

REV. 611 SET ERIPTER EE Set AS OR Seren anon eee rar ee NN 10 Easterbrook & Fischel, THE ECONOMIC STRUC- TURE OF CORPORATE LAW (1991) ..000000.0....000...00cceeeeee 10, 11 Edney, Comment, Preclusive … Assuming a fair airing of the issue in federal court, that court’s ruling on per- muissible state-law damages may bind the parties in state _ court, although it will set no precedent otherwise governing

Amicus Curiae Brief — Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt, 139 S. Ct. 1285 (2019) (No. 18-315)

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2019

In the course of making significant amendments to the Act in 1986, Congress heard evidence that the six- year limitations period sometimes allowed wrongdoers to escape liability because their frauds … The government had awarded the Parsons Corpora- tion a $60 million contract to clean up “excess munitions left by retreating or defeated enemy forces.” J.A. 33a.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Chong Yim, et al., Petitioners v. City of Seattle, Washington

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Nov 10, 2023

As shown below, the FCHO interfered with GRE’s goals to provide safe, clean, comfortable, stable, and affordable housing for the Addison’s lowincome tenants and to maintain the project as a sustainable … Over that 15month period, security costs averaged $14,786 a month and totaled $221,786. App. 4-5.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2002

Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (1983)....... 5 Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238 (1984) .... 23 UNUM Life Insurance Co. of Am. v. Ward, 526 U.S. … Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 90 (1983); 29 U.S.C. § 1001(b).

Amicus Curiae Brief — Chevron USA Inc. v. Echazabal

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2002

United Air Lines, Inc., Ee Was GUO CROCE cccccccccccccccccceces Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams, cert. granted, 69 U.S.L.W. 3670 (2001) ....... U.S. Airways, Inc. v. … For example, the House Report specifically noted that the ADA was not intended to undermine OSHA standards: The OSHA lead standard, for example, requires that employees exposed to lead be tested periodically

Amicus Curiae Brief — Sierra Club v. Morton

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1972

Professor Jaffe has commented on this distinction: [There is] no question that it may lat appropriate that. … aware of the Sierra Club’s views which were aired repeated- ly at public hearings ‘and in correspondence. The admin- istrators rejected the Sierra Club’s viewpoint.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2008

. _ Attorneys for the Natural Gas Supply Association August 6, 2007 i QUESTIONS PRESENTED Under the Natural Gas Act and the Federal Power Act, as interpreted by this Court in United Gas Pipe Line … Any change in a legal regime that acts, as do the.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Dynegy Power Power Marketing Marketing, Inc. v. Public Public Utilities Utilities Commission Commission Commission (Nos. 06-1468, 06-1454)

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2007

. - (202) 789-0096 — WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 QUESTIONS PRESENTED Under the Natural Gas Act and the Federal Power Act, as interpreted by this Court in United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. … To be clear, despite similarities between the Natural Gas Act and the Federal Power Act, there are critical legal, factual, and economic distinctions that dispositively militate against extending the

Amicus Curiae Brief — David Petersen, et al., Petitioners v. Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · May 26, 2026

Title VII of the 5 Civil Rights Act of 1964 thus affords to religious Americans “favored treatment, affirmatively obligating employers” to accommodate their workers’ reasonable religious practices. … Appeals had made a “fundamental” error in neglecting the principle that “a judge’s function at summary judgment is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter.” 572 U.S. at 656, 659 (cleaned

Amicus Curiae Brief — National Labor Relations Board v. Gissel Packing Co.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1969

first half of that period had been satisfactory. Moreover neithér Johnson could recall ever having criticized his work to Paxton during that whole period. … No. supervisor. ever’‘made any comment: to. Aldridge about any other motor or engine that he worked on.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. Elec. Power Supply Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 2049 (2015) (No. 14-840)

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2015

it during peak-demand periods. … It merely induces generators to supply less energy—period.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Daniel Measurement Measurement Services Services, Inc. v. Eagle Research Research Research Corp. (No. 07-384)

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2007

Comment. 339, 340 (1987). … American Air Filter Co., 772 F.2d 1303, 1313 (7 Cir. 1985); Hetzel v. County of Prince Wil- liam, 89 F.3d 169, 171-72 (4% Cir. 1996); Biggs v.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2008

Delta Air Lines, Inc.. 463 U.S. 85 (1983)...........0... i) Sullivan v. Stroop. 496 U.S. 478 (1990) 0.0... ccceecc eee eeee 15 United States Department of Treasury v. … The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Department of Labor, et al., Petitioners v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Aug 3, 2026

Tellingly, “references to ‘public rights cases’ did not become popular among either judges or commentators until modern times.” … (cleaned up)). Even after Jarkesy, lower courts continue to harbor wildly different views regarding what the remaining remnants of the exception still cover.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2005

United States Army Corps of Engineers, 536 U.S. 903 (2002) (contesting expansion of federal regulatory control over beaches via the Clean Water Act) and before the Michigan Court of Appeals in Glass … As one commentator noted: Either the Supreme Court meant something when it decided Williamson County, or it did not.