From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Certiorari Denied

U.S.
Oct 1, 2001
534 U.S. 820 (2001)

Summary

holding that the administrative appeals unit was not bound by prior rulings of the service centers based on the same mistaken approvals as in the applications at hand

Summary of this case from Hakimuddin v. Department of Homeland Security

Opinion

OCTOBER 1, 2001


No. 00-1799 TURNER v. BENEFICIAL CORP. ET AL. C.A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 242 F.3d 1023.

No. 00-1800 KIA P., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF MORA P., AN INFANT v. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL. C.A.2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 235 F.3d 749.

No. 00-1801 WEIR ET UX. v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD. App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: ___ Ill. App.3d ___, ___, N.E.2d ___.

No. 00-1802 BARNAUD v. BELLE FOURCHE IRRIGATION DISTRICT ET AL. C.A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 235 F.3d 1139.

No. 00-1803 BROWN v. KNOX COUNTY ET AL. Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 39 S.W.3d 585.

No. 00-1804 McDONALD v. WASHINGTON. Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 100 Wash.App. 828, 1 P.3d 1176 and 12 P.3d 649.

No. 00-1806 STANLEY WORKS v. CHRISTOPHER. C.A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 240 F.3d 95.

No. 00-1807 CLANCY v. EMPLOYERS HEALTH INSURANCE CO. C.A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 248 F.3d 1142.

No. 00-1808 KNIGHT v. MALENG ET AL. C.A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2 Fed. Appx. 833.

No. 00-1809 KUNGLE v. INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES, INC., ET AL. Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 134 Md. App. 710.

No. 00-1810 JEFFERSON v. CAPTAIN D'S RESTAURANT, AKA SHONEY'S INC., ET AL. Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.

No. 00-1811 PIOTROWSKI v. CITY OF HOUSTON. C.A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 237 F.3d 567.

No. 00-1814 AROYO-GONZALEZ ET AL. v. COAHOMA CHEMICAL CO. ET AL. C.A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 248 F.3d 1138.


Summaries of

Certiorari Denied

U.S.
Oct 1, 2001
534 U.S. 820 (2001)

holding that the administrative appeals unit was not bound by prior rulings of the service centers based on the same mistaken approvals as in the applications at hand

Summary of this case from Hakimuddin v. Department of Homeland Security

finding that a suit based on LA.REV.STAT. § 22:663 seeking to obtain benefits and prevent an insurer from recovering benefits it had already paid fell within § 502(B) as a claim "to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan"

Summary of this case from Arana v. Ochsner Health Plan

finding that a suit based on La. Rev. Stat. § 22:663 seeking to obtain benefits and prevent an insurer from recovering benefits it had already paid fell within § 502(B) as a claim "to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan"

Summary of this case from Briscoe v. Energy Transfer Partners, LP

requiring a casual link for TILA claims

Summary of this case from In Matter of Salvador

requiring a casual link for TILA claims

Summary of this case from In the Matter of James R. Salvador v. Bank of Am.
Case details for

Certiorari Denied

Case Details

Full title:CERTIORARI DENIED

Court:U.S.

Date published: Oct 1, 2001

Citations

534 U.S. 820 (2001)

Citing Cases

Southerland v. City of New York

Inasmuch as the defendants are state and not federal actors, of course, whatever rights the plaintiffs have…

Shapiro v. Kronfeld

A "mandated reporter" is a "person who, by the nature of her professional position, is required by New York…