From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Certiorari Denied

U.S.
Apr 15, 2002
535 U.S. 986 (2002)

Opinion

APRIL 15, 2002


No. 01-732 DECKER ET AL. v. BRADBURY, SECRETARY OF STATE OF OREGON. C.A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below; 259 F.3d 1169.

No. 01-802 FISCHER DIRECTOR OF REVENUE OF MISSOURI v. LEWIS. C.A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below; 253 F.3d 1077.

No. 01-960 CAVALIER MANUFACTURING, INC. DBA BUCCANEER HOMES OF ALABAMA, INC. v. JACKSON, ET AL. Sup.Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.

No. 01-968 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATES v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL. C.A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below; 265 F.3d 313.

No. 01-978 HENDERSON ET AL. v. MAINELLA, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ET AL. C.A. D.C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below; 253 F.3d 12.

No. 01-1030 WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. C.A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below; 254 F.3d 1313.

No. 01-1083 TEXTRON INC. ET AL. v. MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE. Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied. Reported below; 435 Mass. 297, 756 N.E.2d 1142.

No. 01-1087 KUSTOM SIGNALS, INC. v. APPLIED CONCEPTS, INC., ET AL. C.A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below; 264 F.3d 1326.

No. 01-1094 CAPACCHIONE ET AL. v. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL.; and

No. 01-1122 BELK ET AL., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THE CLASS THEY REPRESENT v. CHARLOTTE-MECHLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. C.A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below; 269 F.3d 305.

No. 01-1109 HOLLIS v. PROVIDENT LIFE ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO. ET AL. C.A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below; 259 F.3d 410.


Summaries of

Certiorari Denied

U.S.
Apr 15, 2002
535 U.S. 986 (2002)
Case details for

Certiorari Denied

Case Details

Full title:CERTIORARI DENIED

Court:U.S.

Date published: Apr 15, 2002

Citations

535 U.S. 986 (2002)

Citing Cases

Southern States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co.

We recognize that two published opinions of this court have stated that in "determining what sanctions to…

Scott v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC

In evaluating a motion for sanctions under Rule 37(b), the court must consider four factors: "(1) whether the…