Search court records - party Christopher Ferrara, page 4

Triple Star Construction Inc Vs Tacc

Docket C-000095-18, New Jersey State, Superior Court, Middlesex County (June 14, 2018)

Arthur Bergman, presiding

Division	General Equity
Case Type	Other General Equity
Tags	Other, General Equity
Plaintiff	Triple Star Construction Inc
Defendant	Tacc

Cite Docket

Analyze

Search within this case
Find cases with Judge
- Arthur Bergman
Find cases with Party
- Tacc
- Triple Star Construction

No. 293 COURT DIRECTIVE ISSUED to publish opinion [293]

Document State of Missouri v. Biden, 23-30445, No. 293 (5th Cir. Aug. 26, 2024)

United States Court of Appeals

State of Missouri v. Biden USDC No. 3:22-CV-1213

The court has taken the following action: The Court has re-issued the opinion for publication in the above case.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
Analyze Party
- State of Louisiana
- State of Missouri
Analyze Firm

No. 283 SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT filed on 07/29/2024 remanding case to the 5th Circuit [23-30445] (MRW) ...

Document State of Missouri v. Biden, 23-30445, No. 283 (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2024)

Document: 283 Page:1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Supreme Court of the United States No. 23-411

Petitioners ON WRIT OF CERTIORARIto the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

THIS CAUSEcameon to be heard on the transcript of the record from the above court and was argued by counsel.

IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthatthe petitioners, Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al., recover from Missouri, et al., Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty-five Dollars and Thirty-two Cents ($8,925.32) for costs herein expended.

June 26, 2024 Printing of joint appendix: Total: $8,925.32 $8,925.32

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
Analyze Party
- State of Louisiana
- State of Missouri
Analyze Firm

No. 55 BRIEF, on behalf of Appellee County of Westchester, FILED

Document Hulinsky v. County of Westchester County Department of Public, 23-0804, No. 55 (2d Cir. Nov. 3, 2023)

The District Court did not reach claims as to these provisions in the proceedings below, having rightly determined that none of the Plaintiffs has standing to challenge them.

None of its provisions regulate conduct based on topic; nor does Chapter 425 “draw[] facial distinctions based on the ‘function or purpose’ of speech,” as Plaintiffs argue.

In short, none of the cases on which Plaintiffs rely supports their claim.

None of Chapter 425’s provisions regulates protected First Amendment expression; rather, they prohibit specific conduct.

Although Plaintiffs devote the bulk of their brief to arguing that Chapter 425 is content-based and vague, they nonetheless advance a half-hearted argument that Chapter 425 is overbroad, in which they assert in conclusory fashion that ...

Cite Document

Analyze

+ More Snippets

No. 282 SUPREME COURT OPINION filed

Document State of Missouri v. Biden, 23-30445, No. 282 (5th Cir. Jun. 26, 2024)

Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.

The District Court made none.

Thus, none of these examples jus- tifies the conduct at issue here.

Nonetheless, Face- book figured that its “current course” of “in effect explaining ourselves more fully, but not shifting on where we draw the lines,” is “a recipe for protracted and increasing acrimony with the [White House].” Id., at 573.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
Analyze Party
- State of Louisiana
- State of Missouri
Analyze Firm

+ More Snippets

No. 69

Document Slattery et al v. City of New York, 1:20-cv-00580, No. 69 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2025)

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case

No. 60

Document Slattery et al v. Cuomo et al, 1:20-cv-00112, No. 60 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2025)

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case

No. 241 OPPOSED MOTION for partial stay of the preliminary injunction pending the issuance of the mandate; ...

Document State of Missouri v. Biden, 23-30445, No. 241 (5th Cir. Sep. 11, 2023)

Motion to Stay

Missouri v. Biden A certificate of interested persons is not required under Fifth Circuit Rule 28.2.1 as appellants are all governmental parties.

To seek to address those issues, this Court’s opinion limited the number of defendants subject to the injunction, vacated nine of the injunction’s ten prohibi- tions, and modified the terms of the remaining prohibition in order to “exclusively target” what the Court regarded as “illegal conduct” and to “provide the officials with additional guidance or instruction on what behavior is prohibited.” Op.

First, this Court could enter a partial stay of the preliminary injunction, to the extent it is inconsistent with this Court’s ruling, pending the issuance of the man- date.

As between these options, a partial stay would be preferable, as it would give immediate effect to this Court’s modification of the injunction without otherwise altering the course of appellate proceedings.

But either form of relief would avoid the improper result of allowing the district court’s preliminary injunction to regain effect even after having been held invalid by this Court.

Cite Document

Analyze