Archive for the '8th COA' Category

Judgment for Plaintiff in ERISA Action Affirmed, and Criminal Matter

In US v. Golinveaux, No. 09-1959, the court of appeals affirmed defendant’s conviction for being a felon in possession of seven rounds of .22 caliber ammunition while having been previously convicted of three or more violent felony offenses, on the grounds that 1) the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant showed [...]

Judgment for Plaintiff in ERISA Action Affirmed, and Criminal Matter

In US v. Golinveaux, No. 09-1959, the court of appeals affirmed defendant’s conviction for being a felon in possession of seven rounds of .22 caliber ammunition while having been previously convicted of three or more violent felony offenses, on the grounds that 1) the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant showed [...]

Judgment for Plaintiff in ERISA Action Affirmed, and Criminal Matter

In US v. Golinveaux, No. 09-1959, the court of appeals affirmed defendant’s conviction for being a felon in possession of seven rounds of .22 caliber ammunition while having been previously convicted of three or more violent felony offenses, on the grounds that 1) the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant showed [...]

Judgment for Plaintiff in ERISA Action Affirmed, and Criminal Matter

In US v. Golinveaux, No. 09-1959, the court of appeals affirmed defendant’s conviction for being a felon in possession of seven rounds of .22 caliber ammunition while having been previously convicted of three or more violent felony offenses, on the grounds that 1) the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant showed [...]

Civil Rights Action Arising out of Traffic Violation, and Criminal Matter

Mills v. City of Grand Forks, No. 09-2119, concerned a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against the City of Grand Forks claiming that the City, in fining plaintiff for a traffic violation under a city ordinance, with the fine exceeding the amount of money authorized under North Dakota state law, violated [...]

Civil Rights Action Arising out of Traffic Violation, and Criminal Matter

Mills v. City of Grand Forks, No. 09-2119, concerned a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against the City of Grand Forks claiming that the City, in fining plaintiff for a traffic violation under a city ordinance, with the fine exceeding the amount of money authorized under North Dakota state law, violated [...]

Civil Rights Action Arising out of Traffic Violation, and Criminal Matter

Mills v. City of Grand Forks, No. 09-2119, concerned a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against the City of Grand Forks claiming that the City, in fining plaintiff for a traffic violation under a city ordinance, with the fine exceeding the amount of money authorized under North Dakota state law, violated [...]

Civil Rights Action Arising out of Traffic Violation, and Criminal Matter

Mills v. City of Grand Forks, No. 09-2119, concerned a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against the City of Grand Forks claiming that the City, in fining plaintiff for a traffic violation under a city ordinance, with the fine exceeding the amount of money authorized under North Dakota state law, violated [...]

Denial of Social Security Benefits Affirmed, and Criminal Matters

Brown v. Astrue, No. 08-3353, involved plaintiff’s appeal from the district court’s affirmance of an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.  The court of appeals affirmed on the grounds that 1) the larger medical record did not support plaintiff’s expert’s conclusory [...]

Denial of Social Security Benefits Affirmed, and Criminal Matters

Brown v. Astrue, No. 08-3353, involved plaintiff’s appeal from the district court’s affirmance of an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.  The court of appeals affirmed on the grounds that 1) the larger medical record did not support plaintiff’s expert’s conclusory [...]