{"count":137545,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0yNi4zMjEyMSZzPTUyOTY3NDYmdD1vJmQ9MjAyNi0wOC0yMyZwPTI%3D&q=ENFORCEMENT+OF+FINES&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9505807/markley-v-state-elections-enforcement-commission/","attorney":"","caseName":"Markley v. State Elections Enforcement Commission","caseNameFull":"","citation":["349 Conn. 67"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9505807,"court":"Supreme Court of Connecticut","court_citation_string":"Conn.","court_id":"conn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-05-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC20726","docket_id":68549116,"judge":"Robinson; McDonald; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-01T03:01:54.546840Z","date_created":"2024-05-21T12:01:48.258362Z","score":{"bm25":67.89507}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":11297920,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/05/21/markley_v._state_elections_enforcement_commission_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-01T03:56:34.020127Z","date_created":"2026-04-01T02:53:29.499943Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7a5aaca181e7c11b0033dc4ce2188893c48eeb48","snippet":"May 21, 2024                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                       Page 3\n\n\n\n\n         349 Conn. 67                    MAY, 2024                                    67\n                     Markley v. State Elections Enforcement Commission\n\n\n               JOE MARKLEY ET AL. v. STATE ELECTIONS\n                    ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION\n                            (SC 20726)\n               Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, Mullins, Ecker and Alexander, Js.\n\n                  ","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR349/CR349.23.pdf","id":9972420,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/05/21/markley_v._state_elections_enforcement_commission.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-14T06:33:53.609463Z","date_created":"2024-05-21T12:01:48.269849Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e22e6b057626395c4617f3677aad1dd4eeaf90be","snippet":"************************************************\n   The “officially released” date that appears near the\nbeginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be\npublished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it\nis released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the\nbeginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-\nion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-\ncially released” date appearing in the opinion.\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncor","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Appeal from a decision of the defendant finding the plaintiffs in violation of state election laws and regula- tions, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial dis- trict of New Britain, where the court, Joseph M. Shortall, judge trial referee, granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and, exercising the powers of the Superior Court, rendered judgment dismissing the action, from which the plaintiffs appealed; thereafter, this court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings; subsequently, the case was and tried to the court, Hon. Joseph M. Shortall, judge trial referee, who, exercising the powers of the Superior Court, rendered judgment affirming the deci- sion of the defendant, from which the plaintiffs appealed. Reversed; judgment directed. Charles Miller, pro hac vice, with whom were Mario Cerame and, on the brief, Adam J. Tragone, pro hac vice, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Maura Murphy Osborne, deputy associate attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was William Tong, attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9972420,11297920],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiffs, M and S, candidates for state legislative offices in the 2014 general election, appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant, the State Elections Enforcement Commission, which assessed fines against the plaintiffs upon determining that they had violated certain state statutes and regulations governing campaign financing and the Citizens' Election Program (program) (§ 9-700 et seq.). The plaintiffs' respective campaign committees had each applied for and received public funding grants through the program. During the 2014 election cycle, the plaintiffs' campaign committees published certain communications and advertisements that made various references to the record and policies of D, then the governor, who was running for reelection at that time. The communications both touted the plaintiffs' respective accomplishments and positions and referred to their opposi- tion to the agenda advanced by D and D's Democratic allies, including tax hikes and increased spending. One of the communications high- lighted votes taken by S's opponent in the 2014 election, C, when C was serving as a state representative. C filed a complaint with the commission, alleging that the communications were impermissible cam- paign expenditures under the program. C relied on an advisory opinion previously issued by the commission, in which it interpreted the statutes (§§ 9-601b and 9-607 (g)) defining the term ''expenditure'' and governing the permissibility of campaign expenditures, as well as the state regula- tions (§§ 9-706-1 and 9-706-2) implementing the program, and concluded that, in the absence of a statutory exception to the definition of ''expendi- ture,'' funds in a candidate committee's account may not be used to make a communication that is not directly related to the candidate's own electoral race and that also promotes the defeat of or attacks a candidate who is not a direct opponent of the candidate sponsoring the communication but who is running in a different race. After a hearing, the commission found that the plaintiffs had violated the applicable statutes and regulations by using their candidate committee funds to pay for communications that criticized D in the course of promoting their opposition to D's policies. On appeal to the trial court, the plaintiffs claimed that the statutes and regulations imposing expenditure limita- tions as a condition of receiving public funding violated their rights under the first amendment to the United States constitution by restricting their ability to speak about other, nonopposing candidates. The trial court agreed with the commission's conclusion that the plaintiffs had 68 MAY, 2024 349 Conn. 67 Markley v. State Elections Enforcement Commission violated the applicable statutes and regulations, insofar as the communi- cations constituted the functional equivalent of express advocacy for the defeat of D in his reelection bid, and the trial court further concluded that the program constituted a valid, alternative route by which the plaintiffs voluntarily had elected to exercise their first amendment rights and that the program's conditions did not abridge those rights. Accord- ingly, the trial court rendered judgment upholding the commission's decision, from which the plaintiffs appealed. On appeal, the plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that the commission's enforcement of the applicable statutes and regulations to preclude publicly funded candidates from using their candidate committee funds to pay for campaign communica- tions, which, as a rhetorical device, invoke the name of a candidate in a different electoral race to refer more broadly to the policies or political party associated with that candidate, violated their first amendment rights. Held that the commission's enforcement of the applicable statutes and regulations in accordance with its advisory opinion imposed an unconsti- tutional condition in violation of the first amendment to the extent that it penalized the plaintiffs for mentioning D's name in a manner that was not the functional equivalent of speech squarely directed at D's reelection campaign, and, accordingly, this court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case with direction to sustain the plaintiffs' adminis- trative appeal: Following an examination of the United States Supreme Court's decisions considering the constitutionality of various campaign finance reform laws under the first amendment and a discussion of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, pursuant to which the government may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his or her constitutionally protected freedom of speech, even if that person is not otherwise entitled to such a benefit, this court observed that, although laws that burden political speech, including expenditure limitations, ordinarily are subject to strict scrutiny, candidates who voluntarily accept public campaign funding also accept reasonable terms and conditions attendant to such programs that otherwise may abridge their free speech rights. Nevertheless, the fact that a candidate voluntarily participates in a gov- ernment program is not dispositive of the first amendment issue, when, as in the present case, the program restrictions at issue are not generalized expenditure limits but, rather, directly govern the specific content of a publicly financed candidate's communications, and, because public campaign financing laws that restrict political expression operate to burden a candidate's core first amendment speech, the court must look beyond voluntariness and apply strict scrutiny to determine whether the restrictions are narrowly tailored to achieve the traditional goals of public campaign financing, namely, promoting participation in the campaign financing program, reducing fundraising burdens and the corrupting 349 Conn. 67 MAY, 2024 69 Markley v. State Elections Enforcement Commission effects of contributions and the pursuit of contributions on government decision making, facilitating candidate communications with the elector- ate, and protecting the fiscal integrity of the program. Prohibiting publicly funded candidates from engaging in campaign speech concerning other electoral races survives strict scrutiny if it is narrowly tailored to protect the public fisc by enforcing the limitations of the program, and limitations on campaign speech that refer to a candidate in another race are narrowly tailored to achieve that compel- ling state interest only when the speech at issue is unquestionably the functional equivalent of express advocacy or campaign speech concern- ing the candidate involved in the other race, rather than a rhetorical device intended to communicate where the speaker stands on the issues. Moreover, this court recognized that candidates must be able to commu- nicate where they stand on issues in relation to other candidates and public officials, and invoking prominent political figures by name will sometimes provide the most meaningful and effective way for a candidate to explain to voters their political ideals, policy commitments, and the values they hope to bring to the office they seek, even if some of those political figures may happen to be candidates elsewhere on the ballot in a particular election, and the rhetorical value of being able to categorize oneself in relation to other political candidates is especially great in state legislative races. Nonetheless, the commission could apply the standard articulated in its advisory opinion to preclude publicly funded candidates from using committee funds to promote the defeat of or to attack a candidate who is not a direct opponent of the candidate sponsoring the communication but who is engaged in a different electoral race, as that standard was not, on its face, an unconstitutional condition in violation of the first amendment, to the extent that it ensured that public funds are spent only on qualifying campaigns without exceeding the amount of the grant allotted per race, but, if that standard is applied in a way that muzzles a publicly funded candidate's political speech beyond that necessary to prevent the funding of campaign speech with respect to a clearly identi- fied candidate running in a different electoral race, it is a content based restriction that is an unconstitutional condition in violation of the first amendment. In determining whether campaign communications by a publicly funded candidate who uses the name of a candidate engaged in a different electoral race as a rhetorical device to refer to a set of policies opposed or supported by the publicly funded candidate constitutes impermissible electoral communications, rather than a constitutionally protected mes- sage in direct furtherance of the publicly funded candidate's own cam- paign for office, this court relied on the opinion announcing the judgment of the United States Supreme Court in Federal Election Commission v. 70 MAY, 2024 349 Conn. 67 Markley v. State Elections Enforcement Commission Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (551 U.S. 449), which held that a court should find that a campaign communication is the functional equivalent of express advocacy of election or defeat of a candidate, rather than permissible discussion of issues and candidates who are intimately tied to public issues, only if the communication is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific can- didate. Furthermore, the functional equivalent of express advocacy standard is objective and focuses on the substance of the communication rather than on its effect or considerations of the speaker's intent to affect the election, and, although the distinction between permissible discussion of issues and candidates, on the one hand, and prohibited advocacy of election or defeat of candidates, on the other, may often dissolve in practical application, the functional equivalency standard gives the bene- fit of the doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech, such that, when the first amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker rather than the censor. With respect to the communications and advertisements at issue, this court concluded that they were not the functional equivalent of express advocacy with respect to D's reelection, insofar as they could not reason- ably be construed as anything more than a rhetorical device intended to communicate the merits of the plaintiffs' candidacies as bulwarks against the policies endorsed by D and his Democratic allies. Three of the communications at issue revealed nothing that rendered them the functional equivalent of express advocacy with respect to D's reelection, as they lacked any express references thereto, did not suggest that a vote for C would be tantamount to a vote for D or Democratic Party policies, and did not indicate in any way that D was running for reelection in 2014 or that support for the plaintiffs would be integral to defeating the candidacy of D or any other Democrat seeking office, and, instead, those communications highlighted the plaintiffs' role as a legislative check and balance against policies endorsed by D and his Democratic allies, such that the communications did not convey a differ- ent meaning in 2014, when D was running for reelection as an incumbent, than they would have conveyed during the 2012 or 2016 midterm election cycles, when D was simply serving as the governor. Although the remaining two communications presented a closer question, insofar as they either used words somewhat evocative of an ongoing negative campaign against D, such as promoting a new direction and imploring voters to ''change course'' and stop D's agenda, or expressly referred to D's campaign for governor, this court could not concluded that those communications were the functional equivalent of express advocacy with respect to D's reelection because they reasonably might be understood as urging electoral resistance to the leadership and initia- 349 Conn. 67 MAY, 2024 71 Markley v. State Elections Enforcement Commission tives of D and his Democratic allies, and, to the extent that the references to ''change'' and a ''campaign'' could be understood to be the functional equivalent of express advocacy, the tie went to the speakers, that is, the plaintiffs. Argued September 13, 2023—officially released May 21, 2024"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5292447/markley-v-state-elections-enforcement-commission/","attorney":"","caseName":"Markley v. State Elections Enforcement Commission","caseNameFull":"","citation":["339 Conn. 96"],"citeCount":7,"cluster_id":5292447,"court":"Supreme Court of Connecticut","court_citation_string":"Conn.","court_id":"conn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-05-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC20305","docket_id":60672291,"judge":"Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Vertefeuille","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-01T02:47:13.212978Z","date_created":"2021-10-25T20:03:56.315364Z","score":{"bm25":63.501392}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":11297691,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/05/20/markley_v._state_elections_enforcement_commission.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-01T03:06:31.917069Z","date_created":"2026-04-01T02:44:53.186018Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2ed1a2cde426ea9271094a4f6c826fdb5a6e460b","snippet":"     JOE MARKLEY ET AL. v. STATE ELECTIONS\n          ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION\n                  (SC 20305)\n             Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, Mullins,\n                   Kahn, Ecker and Vertefeuille, Js.*\n\n                                   Syllabus\n\nPursuant to statute (§ 4-181a (a) (2)), an administrative agency may recon-\n   sider a final decision within forty days of personal delivery or mailing\n   of that decision, regardless of whether a petition for reconsideration\n   has b","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR339/339CR262.pdf","id":5121009,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/10/26/markley_v._state_elections_enforcement_commission.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-10T21:15:17.615992Z","date_created":"2021-10-25T20:03:56.318229Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"148d08d3095d91079d0ae336479402153e331caf","snippet":"***********************************************\n    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Appeal from a decision of the defendant finding the plaintiffs in violation of state election laws and regula- tions, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial dis- trict of New Britain, where the court, Joseph M. Shortall, judge trial referee, granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and, exercising the powers of the Superior Court, rendered judgment dismissing the action, from which the plaintiffs appealed. Reversed; further proceedings. Allen Dickerson, pro hac vice, with whom were Doug Dubitsky and Owen Yeates, pro hac vice, for the appel- lants (plaintiffs). Michael K. Skold, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney gen- eral, and Maura Murphy Osborne, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5121009,11297691],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Pursuant to statute (§ 4-181a (a) (2)), an administrative agency may recon- sider a final decision within forty days of personal delivery or mailing of that decision, regardless of whether a petition for reconsideration has been filed. Pursuant further to statute, (§ 4-183 (c) (3)), a party may appeal an agency's final decision made after reconsideration within forty-five days. The plaintiffs, two candidates for state elective offices, appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant, the State Elections Enforce- ment Commission, which assessed fines against the plaintiffs upon determining that they had violated certain state election laws and regula- tions. The plaintiffs filed a timely petition for reconsideration of the commission's final decision on February 14, 2018, pursuant to § 4-181a (a) (1), which provides, inter alia, that an agency's failure to decide This appeal was originally argued before a panel of this court consisting of Chief Justice Robinson, and Justices Palmer, McDonald, Mullins, Kahn, and Ecker. Thereafter, Justice Vertefeuille was added to the panel and has read the briefs and appendices, and listened to a recording of the oral argument prior to participating in this decision. The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. 339 Conn. 96 OCTOBER, 2021 97 Markley v. State Elections Enforcement Commission whether to reconsider a decision within twenty-five days of the filing of such a petition shall constitute a denial of that petition. The commis- sion took no action on the petition for reconsideration within twenty- five days of its filing, resulting in the denial of the petition on March 11, 2018, by operation of § 4-181a (a) (1). Nevertheless, the commission's executive director and general counsel subsequently placed the plain- tiffs' petition for reconsideration on the agenda of a special meeting of the commission that was conducted on March 23, 2018, at which the commission formally denied the petition. Thereafter, on May 7, 2018, the plaintiffs filed their administrative appeal with the trial court. The court rendered judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the denial of their petition for reconsideration had occurred on March 11, 2018, by operation of § 4-181a (a) (1) and, therefore, that the plaintiffs had failed to timely file their appeal under § 4-183 (c) (2), which requires such appeals to be filed within forty-five days of the denial of reconsideration by opera- tion of § 4-181a (a) (1). On the plaintiffs' appeal from the trial court's judgment, held that the trial court improperly dismissed the plaintiffs' administrative appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the plaintiffs' appeal was timely under § 4-183 (c) (3): because § 4-181a (a) (2) authorizes an agency to reconsider a final decision sua sponte for up to forty days from the issuance of that decision, regardless of whether a petition for reconsideration is filed, the commission had authority under that statutory provision to reconsider its final decision in the plaintiffs' matter until March 26, 2018, and, in light of the denial of the petition for reconsideration by operation of § 4-181a (a) (1) on March 11, 2018, reconsideration pursuant to § 4-181a (a) (2) was the only lawful action that the commission could have taken on the petition at the special meeting held on March 23, 2018; accordingly, under the particular facts of the case, the timeliness of the plaintiffs' appeal to the trial court was governed by the forty-five day limitation period of § 4-183 (c) (3), which commenced on the date the plaintiffs were notified by the commis- sion of its action on the petition for reconsideration at the special meeting, rather than the forty-five day period of § 4-183 (c) (2), which, if applicable, would have commenced forty-five days after the denial of the petition by operation of § 4-181a (a) (1); moreover, a contrary determination by this court would effectively have penalized the plain- tiffs for the commission's mistake in considering the petition for recon- sideration after it had been denied by operation of law, especially because the plaintiffs were entitled to presume that the commission's action in considering the petition at the special meeting was apparently consistent with law, and the commission could claim no prejudice or unfairness by virtue of this court's remand for a resolution of the merits of the plaintiffs' administrative appeal. Argued October 22, 2019—officially released May 20, 2021 May 21, 2021, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes. 98 OCTOBER, 2021 339 Conn. 96 Markley v. State Elections Enforcement Commission"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10655729/in-re-enforcement-of-philippine-forfeiture-judgment/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Enforcement of Philippine Forfeiture Judgment","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10655729,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","court_citation_string":"2d Cir.","court_id":"ca2","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-08-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"24-185(L)","docket_id":71136191,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-08-18T15:00:23.165167Z","date_created":"2025-08-18T15:00:23.090508Z","score":{"bm25":39.03551}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[93146,178154,187182,198595,266788,335136,450601,462450,481325,710273,766994,771508,781270,790064,810785,821431,1345393,1405642,1885812,2657670,2676821,2747293,2811845,3038726,5531657,5536551,6997682,7010370,8411176,8413426,8936572,9413324,9432577,9435205,9486832,9489885,9506050,11066644],"download_url":"http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/b5e75c55-9342-46af-8386-2cb1d497ebf0/4/doc/24-185_opn.pdf","id":11122316,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/08/18/in_re_enforcement_of_philippine_forfeiture_judgment.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T17:30:51.589128Z","date_created":"2025-08-18T15:00:23.092250Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2cc2df41edd3ce9c012572caf982d38a83d59717","snippet":"24-185(L)\nIn re: Enforcement of Philippine Forfeiture Judgment\n                                  In the\n            United States Court of Appeals\n                      For the Second Circuit\n                                 ________\n\n                            AUGUST TERM 2024\n\n                        ARGUED: MARCH 11, 2025\n                        DECIDED: AUGUST 18, 2025\n\n                       Nos. 24-185(L), 24-186(Con)\n\n    IN RE: ENFORCEMENT OF PHILIPPINE FORFEITURE JUDGMENT AGAINST\n     ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11122316],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4342631/applicability-of-interest-and-penalty-provisions-of-the-criminal-fine/","attorney":"","caseName":"Applicability of Interest and Penalty Provisions of the Criminal Fine Enforcement Act to Fines Imposed as a Condition of Probation","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4342631,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1988-06-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":null,"docket_id":4575414,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:08.551630Z","date_created":"2017-01-27T22:43:34.733664Z","score":{"bm25":38.434837}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[481340,9842028],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1988/06/31/op-olc-v012-p0117_0.pdf","id":4119892,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/1988/06/15/applicability_of_interest_and_penalty_provisions_of_the_criminal_fine.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:12:12.888837Z","date_created":"2017-01-27T22:43:34.740601Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"245e4107392a4b7155a4405e3899c986cab37f07","snippet":"    Applicability of Interest and Penalty Provisions of the Criminal\n      Fine Enforcement Act to Fines Imposed as a Condition of\n                                Probation\n\n\nA pplication o f the interest and penalty provisions o f the Crim inal Fine Enforcem ent Act o f 1984 is\n   m andatory in the case o f late paym ent or nonpaym ent of a fine im posed strictly as a condition o f\n   probation.\n\n                                                                                                   ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4119892],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10000977/child-support-enforcement-agency-v-el/","attorney":"","caseName":"Child Support Enforcement Agency v. E.L.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["154 Haw. 411"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10000977,"court":"Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Haw. App.","court_id":"hawapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-07-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CAAP-20-0000039","docket_id":68939990,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-29T20:14:22.336655Z","date_created":"2024-07-12T19:06:15.403937Z","score":{"bm25":32.520367}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2602460],"download_url":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/CAAP-20-0000039sdo.pdf","id":10467578,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/07/12/child_support_enforcement_agency_v._e.l..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-29T20:14:22.336419Z","date_created":"2024-07-12T19:06:15.405791Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b9fabe0c44a78b29ead42b5c08389f5c9c05af94","snippet":"  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER\n\n\n\n\n                                             Electronically Filed\n                                             Intermediate Court of Appeals\n                                             CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX\n                                             12-JUL-2024\n                                             08:01 AM\n                                             Dkt. 77 SO\n\n\n\n\n                        NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX\n\n\n        ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10467578],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10356705/national-rifle-association-v-commissioner-florida-dept-of-law/","attorney":"","caseName":"National Rifle Association v. Commissioner, Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10356705,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","court_citation_string":"11th Cir.","court_id":"ca11","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":"2024-10-22","dateFiled":"2025-03-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-12314","docket_id":60053295,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-03-14T20:01:07.282799Z","date_created":"2025-03-14T20:01:07.154159Z","score":{"bm25":31.838257}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202112314.enb.op.pdf","id":10823293,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/03/14/national_rifle_association_v._commissioner_florida_dept._of_law.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-03T20:17:30.918632Z","date_created":"2025-03-14T20:01:07.156638Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8aae4ce8178fc96771091629a70c8ee2cc5f3ef3","snippet":"USCA11 Case: 21-12314     Document: 131-1       Date Filed: 03/14/2025    Page: 1 of 169\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 [PUBLISH]\n                                       In the\n                  United States Court of Appeals\n                            For the Eleventh Circuit\n\n                             ____________________\n\n                                    No. 21-12314\n                             ____________________\n\n         NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIAT","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10823293],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"ENB","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9382526/national-rifle-association-v-commissioner-florida-department-of-law/","attorney":"","caseName":"National Rifle Association v. Commissioner, Florida Department of Law Enforcement","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9382526,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","court_citation_string":"11th Cir.","court_id":"ca11","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-03-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-12314","docket_id":66975321,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:02:04.732965Z","date_created":"2023-03-09T16:00:49.155543Z","score":{"bm25":31.18481}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[85827,101447,175346,804936,3187366,3645829,5558792,6352829,6505295,6505704,6506019,6541196,6604477,7099393,7101137,7129681,7664137,7664875,7885366,7984591,7985116,8296262,9368327,9431078,9435156,9435178,9441934,9878764],"download_url":"http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202112314.pdf","id":9378002,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/03/09/national_rifle_association_v._commissioner_florida_department_of_law.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T18:51:42.354602Z","date_created":"2023-03-09T16:00:49.158669Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"51c3b3cc0bae1001acdfcc2b1ef84a55a3dd65d3","snippet":"USCA11 Case: 21-12314      Document: 65-1       Date Filed: 03/09/2023     Page: 1 of 40\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  [PUBLISH]\n                                       In the\n                 United States Court of Appeals\n                           For the Eleventh Circuit\n\n                             ____________________\n\n                                    No. 21-12314\n                             ____________________\n\n        NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATIO","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9378002],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"NEW","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9383292/national-rifle-association-v-commissioner-florida-department-of-law/","attorney":"","caseName":"National Rifle Association v. Commissioner, Florida Department of Law Enforcement","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9383292,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","court_citation_string":"11th Cir.","court_id":"ca11","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-03-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-12314","docket_id":66996474,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:02:15.346073Z","date_created":"2023-03-13T16:04:55.706837Z","score":{"bm25":31.063581}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[85827,101447,175346,804936,3187366,3645829,5558792,6352829,6505295,6505704,6506019,6541196,6604477,7099393,7101137,7129681,7664137,7664875,7885366,7984591,7985116,8296262,9368327,9431078,9435156,9435178,9441934,9878764],"download_url":"http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202112314.pdf","id":9378768,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/03/09/national_rifle_association_v._commissioner_florida_department_of_law_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T16:32:09.451300Z","date_created":"2023-03-13T16:04:55.708858Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"db976ae9b9c28895ebc6c6af86fdc08dd7c1b965","snippet":"USCA11 Case: 21-12314      Document: 65-1       Date Filed: 03/09/2023     Page: 1 of 40\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  [PUBLISH]\n                                       In the\n                 United States Court of Appeals\n                           For the Eleventh Circuit\n\n                             ____________________\n\n                                    No. 21-12314\n                             ____________________\n\n        NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATIO","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9378768],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"NEW","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4649639/in-re-enforcement-of-subpoenas-bf-the-bd-of-med/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Enforcement of Subpoenas b/f the Bd of Med.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4649639,"court":"Supreme Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa.","court_id":"pa","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-08-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"35 EAP 2016","docket_id":16079710,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:45:42.925068Z","date_created":"2019-08-20T13:49:28.806947Z","score":{"bm25":31.047913}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1467011,1480765,1540582,2385979],"download_url":"http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-98-2018mo - 10410897575546469.pdf","id":4426892,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/08/20/in_re_enforcement_of_subpoenas_bf_the_bd_of_med..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:44:34.164754Z","date_created":"2019-08-20T13:49:28.811022Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0835362971310f4118d06e3de0cfd151d42953ea","snippet":"                                 [J-98-2018]\n                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n                              EASTERN DISTRICT\n\n   SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.\n\n\n IN RE: PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT               :   No. 35 EAP 2016\n OF SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE                    :\n HEARING EXAMINER IN A                         :   Appeal from the Order of the\n PROCEEDING BEFORE THE BOARD                   :   Commonwealth Court entered on\n OF M","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4426892],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4858014/commissioner-of-public-health-v-colandrea/","attorney":"","caseName":"Commissioner of Public Health v. Colandrea","caseNameFull":"","citation":["202 Conn. App. 815"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4858014,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-02-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC42475","docket_id":59670923,"judge":"Elgo; Cradle; Alexander","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:47:59.110463Z","date_created":"2021-02-22T13:02:30.972675Z","score":{"bm25":30.18824}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2372201,4191005,4507636,6356179,7864443,8225963],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP202/202AP125.pdf","id":4661793,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/02/23/commissioner_of_public_health_v._colandrea.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T23:25:31.649176Z","date_created":"2021-02-22T13:02:30.974583Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"345b4930391053bba25efca2486e5c08d69be588","snippet":"***********************************************\n    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Petition for an order to enforce a subpoena duces tecum, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford and tried to the court, Robaina, J.; judgment granting the petition, from which the defen- dant appealed to this court, DiPentima, C. J., and Alv- ord and Lavery, Js., which affirmed the judgment of the trial court; thereafter, the court, Sheridan, J., granted the plaintiff's motion for contempt; subse- quently, the court, Sheridan, J., granted in part the defendant's motion to vacate, and the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed. Paul Spinella, for the appellant (defendant). Susan Castonguay, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney gen- eral, and Clare Kindall, solicitor general, for the appel- lee (plaintiff).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4661793],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The defendant, a dentist licensed by the Department of Public Health, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court denying in part his motion to vacate a prior contempt judgment stemming from his noncompliance with a subpoena duces tecum seeking the production of certain patient records, issued by the plaintiff, the Commissioner of Public Health, pursuant to statute (§ 19a-14 (a) (10)). The court pre- viously had granted a petition for the enforcement of the subpoena and ordered the defendant to release the records to the department, and this court affirmed that order. The trial court subsequently granted the plaintiff's motion to find the defendant in contempt for failure to comply with the subpoena and ordered the defendant to pay a coercive fine each day until he produced the records to the department. Thereafter, the court affirmed its finding of contempt but vacated the fine, and it issued supplemental orders that the defendant permit the department to search his dental office for the patient records and awarded attorney's fees and costs to the plaintiff pursuant to the statute (§ 52-256b (a)) that permits the award of attorney's fees in contempt proceedings in the discretion of the court. Held: 1. The defendant's claim that the trial court erred in finding that his noncom- pliance with the subpoena was wilful was unavailing; the court found the defendant's testimony as to how the subpoenaed records came to be discarded or destroyed was not credible and concluded that the defendant had failed to prove that he was unable to comply with the subpoena's request for all applicable records, and, as the defendant bore the burden of proving that his noncompliance was not wilful, the plaintiff was not required to present evidence in opposition to the defendant's claim. 2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the plaintiff attorney's fees pursuant to § 52-256b (a), as the court found the defen- dant's noncompliance was wilful and this court affirmed that finding. 3. This court declined to review the defendant's challenge to the constitution- ality of the trial court's order permitting the plaintiff to search his office; the defendant claimed the search violated his fourth amendment rights pursuant to our rules of practice (§ 13-9), however, the plaintiff com- menced the action seeking enforcement of the subpoena pursuant to § 19a-14 (a) (10), and the defendant did not challenge the constitutional- ity of that statute or the court's ability to issue the order under that statute. Argued October 19, 2020—officially released February 23, 2021"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5057010/stephens-v-fines-recycling-inc-1091111-ala-11-10-2011/","attorney":"Bruce F. Rogers and John W. Clark IV of Bainbridge, Mims, Rogers & Smith, LLP, Birmingham; and B. Clark Carpenter, Jr., of Thornton, Carpenter, O’Brien, Lazenby & Lawrence, Talladega, for appellants., Donald W. Stewart of Stewart & Stewart, P.C., Anniston; and John L. Lawler, Mobile, for appellees.","caseName":"Stephens v. Fines Recycling, Inc., 1091111 (Ala. 11-10-2011)","caseNameFull":"Charles H. STEPHENS and Stephens Properties, Inc. v. FINES RECYCLING, INC.","citation":["84 So. 3d 867","2011 WL 5436484","2011 Ala. LEXIS 226"],"citeCount":16,"cluster_id":5057010,"court":"Supreme Court of Alabama","court_citation_string":"Ala.","court_id":"ala","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-11-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"1091111","docket_id":60306942,"judge":"Shaw, Malone, Stuart, Parker, Wise","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:32:33.462929Z","date_created":"2021-08-26T02:49:17.638945Z","score":{"bm25":30.131878}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4871883,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"alabama/court_opinions/documents/6d6f25cd46abc9c4.xml","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T21:15:02.559194Z","date_created":"2021-08-26T02:49:17.656305Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nCharles H. Stephens and Stephens Properties, Inc., the defendants/counterclaim plaintiffs below, appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Fines Recycling, Inc. (\"Fines\"); Harry Donaldson, Jr.; Gerry Hamby; *Page 2 \nHal Isbell; and Donald G. Wilson (collectively \"the Fines shareholders\"), the plaintiffs/counterclaim defendants below, on claims stemming from a dispute over a commercial lease. We dismiss the appeal as being from a ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"Appeal from Talladega Circuit Court (CV-05-255)","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4871883],"source":"ZU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1784036/in-re-paternity-of-tjdc/","attorney":"On behalf of the respondent-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Jessica Roulette, Jennafer Dorfman Wagner and DeAngela M. Ellis of Legal Action of Wisconsin, Inc. of Milwaukee., On behalf of the petitioner-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Kristela L. Cervera of Milwaukee County Department of Child Support Enforcement of Milwaukee.","caseName":"In Re Paternity of TJDC","caseNameFull":"In Re the Paternity of T. J. D. C.: State of Wisconsin, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Robin M. W., Respondent, John D. C., Respondent-Appellant","citation":["2008 WI App 60","750 N.W.2d 957","310 Wis. 2d 786","2008 Wisc. App. LEXIS 202"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":1784036,"court":"Court of Appeals of Wisconsin","court_citation_string":"Wis. Ct. App.","court_id":"wisctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2008-03-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2007AP1181","docket_id":1713559,"judge":"Curley, Wedemeyer, Fine","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T06:09:19.998694Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T18:53:52.081005Z","score":{"bm25":30.05213}},"neutralCite":"2008 WI App 60","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1292473,1583340,2225613],"download_url":null,"id":1784036,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T12:12:21.980140Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T07:25:58.342774Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5ebf0f3beed24b2786e5e31e9658c69681f4acc0","snippet":"\n750 N.W.2d 957 (2008)\n2008 WI App 60\nIn re the PATERNITY OF T.J.D.C.\nState of Wisconsin, Petitioner-Respondent,\nv.\nRobin M.W., Respondent,\nJohn D.C., Respondent-Appellant.[†]\nNo. 2007AP1181.\nCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin.\nSubmitted on Briefs January 31, 2008.\nFiled March 18, 2008.\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[8483,8490,8518],"panel_names":["Patricia S. Curley","Ralph Adam Fine","Ted E. Wedemeyer Jr."],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1784036],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10026392/town-of-clarendon-v-houlagans-mc-corp-of-vt-entry-regarding-motion-to/","attorney":"","caseName":"Town of Clarendon v. Houlagans MC Corp of VT - Entry Regarding Motion to Impose Fines & Assess Costs","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10026392,"court":"Vermont Superior Court","court_citation_string":"Vt. Super. Ct. ","court_id":"vtsuperct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-06-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"131-10-17 Vtec","docket_id":69003029,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-07-31T21:39:37.780923Z","date_created":"2024-07-31T21:39:37.734510Z","score":{"bm25":29.743385}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1541504,2161998,8171997],"download_url":"https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/10015","id":10492993,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/06/14/town_of_clarendon_v._houlagans_mc_corp_of_vt_-_entry_regarding_motion_to.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T17:45:09.927843Z","date_created":"2024-07-31T21:39:37.737031Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0b2a3130fb3ca955e9c870633a2e440809dfccb7","snippet":"                                     STATE OF VERMONT\n SUPERIOR COURT                                                   ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION\n                                                                   Docket No. 131-10-17 Vtec\n\n                       Town Clarendon v Houlagans MC Corp of VT\n\n                               ENTRY REGARDING MOTION\n\nCount 1, Municipal Enforcement (131-10-17 Vtec)\n\nTitle:           Motion to Impose Fines & Assess Costs (Motion 5)\nFiler:           Town of Cla","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10492993],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4315746/taylor-v-department-of-industrial-relations-division-of-labor-standards/","attorney":"Counsel, Arthur Samuel Humphrey for Plaintiffs and Appellants., Susan A. Dovi for Defendant and Respondent.","caseName":"Taylor v. Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement","caseNameFull":"AARON TAYLOR Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, Defendant and Respondent","citation":["4 Cal. App. 5th 801","208 Cal. Rptr. 3d 728","81 Cal. Comp. Cases 1016","2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 912"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4315746,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-10-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A146148","docket_id":4482820,"judge":"Bruiniers, Simons, Needham","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:10:27.022260Z","date_created":"2016-10-26T23:02:44.226138Z","score":{"bm25":29.700695}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[112904,118027,1163469,1213708,1239096,1245169,2600810,2625280,5452459],"download_url":"http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A146148.PDF","id":4093007,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2016/10/26/taylor_v._dept._of_industrial_relations.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T13:53:20.654429Z","date_created":"2016-10-26T23:02:44.235211Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c5c06ac436b07e02a93be39289c344a67141c149","snippet":"\n\n\n  Opinion\n \n\n  BRUINIERS, J.\n \n\n  The Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), imposed a $179,329.60 penalty, pursuant to\n   \n   *804\n   \n  Labor Code section 3722, subdivision (b) (hereafter section 3722(b)),\n  \n  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4093007],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8928209/wauneka-v-navajo-department-of-law-enforcement/","attorney":"Regina Holyan, Navajo Department of Justice, Window Rock, Navajo Nation, for Appellant., David Jordan, Gallup, New Mexico, for Appellee.","caseName":"Wauneka v. Navajo Department of Law Enforcement","caseNameFull":"Veronica WAUNEKA v. NAVAJO DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT","citation":["10 Am. Tribal Law 19"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8928209,"court":"Navajo Nation Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"","court_id":"navajo","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-02-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. SC-CV-27-09","docket_id":66194422,"judge":"Shirley, Yazzie","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T22:29:53.036405Z","date_created":"2022-11-27T05:59:15.548346Z","score":{"bm25":29.07776}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8918208,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T19:37:15.659848Z","date_created":"2022-11-27T05:59:15.557640Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n\nOPINION\n\nThis case concerns an appeal by the Navajo Department of Law Enforcement, of a May 26, 2009 Final Damages Order of the Navajo Nation Labor Commission (Commission) in which the Commission awarded a police officer back pay, attorney’s fees, restoration of leave hours; emotional damages; and further, imposed civil fines. A portion of the Commission’s judgment has already been enforced by the Window Rock District","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8918208],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4645762/in-re-custodial-l-enforcement-recording-sought-by-city-of-greensboro/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re: Custodial L. Enforcement Recording Sought By City Of Greensboro","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4645762,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-08-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"18-992","docket_id":16018556,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-12-13T14:25:46.763706Z","date_created":"2019-08-06T12:06:36.247055Z","score":{"bm25":28.909998}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[107301,111185,1200767,1285797,2393667],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=38149","id":4423015,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/08/06/in_re_custodial_l._enforcement_recording_sought_by_city_of_greensboroâ.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:42:00.688429Z","date_created":"2019-08-06T12:06:36.250659Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c81259fd46a39e39f95a507a3df9169f7b49c29f","snippet":"              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                                    No. COA18-992\n\n                                 Filed: 6 August 2019\n\nGuilford County, Nos. 17-CvS-9423, 17-CvS-9539, 17-CvS-9540, 17-CvS-9673-74\n\n\nIN THE MATTER OF CUSTODIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDING SOUGHT\nBY CITY OF GREENSBORO\n\n\n      Appeal by Plaintiff from order entered 23 February 2018 by Judge Susan Bray\n\nin Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 May 2019.\n\n\n      Fox Rot","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4423015],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Release of police body-camera recordings, abuse of discretion, gag orders, First Amendment"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/866686/coleman-v-drug-enforcement-administration/","attorney":"ARGUED: Daniel J. Stotter, Stotter & Associates LLC, Corvallis, Oregon, for Appellant. David Moskowitz, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Yiris Cornwall, Julie Edelstein, Assistant United States Attorneys, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.","caseName":"Coleman v. Drug Enforcement Administration","caseNameFull":"John J. COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee","citation":["714 F.3d 816","2013 WL 1832078","2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8970"],"citeCount":34,"cluster_id":866686,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit","court_citation_string":"4th Cir.","court_id":"ca4","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-05-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"11-1999","docket_id":1326286,"judge":"Traxler, Wilkinson, Niemeyer","lexisCite":"2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8970","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T00:59:08.085075Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T15:52:37.624841Z","score":{"bm25":27.940342}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[108712,109898,112344,185952,186104,477935,483234,552329,691044],"download_url":"http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/111999.P.pdf","id":866686,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2013/05/02/john_coleman_v._dea.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T18:13:30.759604Z","date_created":"2013-05-06T03:18:10.185401Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9a90e5e7880f52a8565c37138cffed3620ef1f38","snippet":"\n\n\n  Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge WILKINSON wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge TRAXLER and Judge NIEMEYER joined.\n \n\n  OPINION\n \n\n  WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:\n \n\n  In February 2008, appellant John Coleman filed a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request with appellee Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) for documents conc","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[866686],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5035257/sylvester-v-city-of-new-orleans-ex-rel-code-enforcement-hearings-bureau/","attorney":"SHARON M. SYLVESTER, 3627 Touro Street, New Orleans, Louisiana '70122, Plaintiff/Appellant/ In Proper Person, SHAWN LINDSAY, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, JOYCE G. JOSEPH, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, ADAM J. SWENSEK, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, REBECCA H. DIETZ, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, 1300 Perdido Street, Room 5E03, New Orleans, • Louisiana 70112, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee","caseName":"Sylvester v. City of New Orleans ex rel. Code Enforcement & Hearings Bureau","caseNameFull":"Sharon M. SYLVESTER v. The CITY OF NEW ORLEANS THROUGH the CODE ENFORCEMENT AND HEARINGS BUREAU","citation":["228 So. 3d 285","2017 WL 4534210"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":5035257,"court":"Louisiana Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"La. Ct. App.","court_id":"lactapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-10-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"NO. 2017-CA-0283","docket_id":60278762,"judge":"III, Lobrano, Lombard","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-17T20:29:31.475517Z","date_created":"2021-08-24T03:25:07.395679Z","score":{"bm25":27.25408}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4848929,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T21:07:34.826409Z","date_created":"2021-08-24T03:25:07.407334Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":" JAMES F. MCKAY III, CHIEF JUDGE | iThis. appeal stems from the November 2, 2015 administrative decision rendered against plaintiff, Sharon Sylvester (“Ms. Sylvester”), by the City of New Orleans Code Enforcement and Hearing Bureau (“City”), Ms. Sylvester appeals the trial court’s November 14, 2016 judgment, denying her petition for judicial review and affirming the City’s administrative decision. For th","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4848929],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/619807/mackay-v-drug-enforcement-administration/","attorney":"Peter Stirba (Nathan A. Crane and Miles W. Millard with him on the briefs) of Stirba & Associates, Salt Lake City, UT, for Petitioner., Anita J. Gay, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.","caseName":"MacKay v. Drug Enforcement Administration","caseNameFull":"Dewey C. MacKAY, M.D., Petitioner, v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, Respondent","citation":["664 F.3d 808","2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25684","2011 WL 6739420"],"citeCount":15,"cluster_id":619807,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit","court_citation_string":"10th Cir.","court_id":"ca10","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-12-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"10-9556","docket_id":1022877,"judge":"Briscoe, Seymour, Lucero","lexisCite":"2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25684","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-20T22:58:50.342869Z","date_created":"2015-11-12T19:58:04.241000Z","score":{"bm25":26.592821}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[109429,110991,166930,169320,186461,538464,686826,694607,791482,1208559],"download_url":"http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-9556.pdf","id":619807,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2011/12/23/MacKay_v._Dea.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T05:50:32.613195Z","date_created":"2011-12-23T20:08:53Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"850390e6b5043432a965954575478179eee6be39","snippet":"\n\n\n  SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.\n \n\n  Dewey C. MacKay, M.D., petitions for review of a decision of the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) revoking his registration to dispense controlled substances and denying all pending requests for renewal or modification.\n  \n   1\n  \n\n   Dewey C. MacKay, M.D.,\n  \n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[619807],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5296746/faour-fraihat-v-us-imm-customs-enforcement/","attorney":"","caseName":"Faour Fraihat v. US Imm. & Customs Enforcement","caseNameFull":"","citation":["16 F.4th 613"],"citeCount":111,"cluster_id":5296746,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","court_citation_string":"9th Cir.","court_id":"ca9","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-10-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20-55634","docket_id":60937630,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:47:04.317557Z","date_created":"2021-11-11T21:00:45.231418Z","score":{"bm25":26.32121}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[109463,118284,605587,731283,772042,778366,788614,788793,793848,808280,1036623,1345335,1378123,1382726,2677279,4032960,4181045,4200475,4206132,4231737,4248498,4253655,4271089,4350414,4418525,4509850,4541376,4558525,4565247,4576103,6943814,7003208,7008253,8411857,8412332,9001715,9426610,9426958,9427563,9430377,9431570,9432474,9432849,9433357,9434429,9435422,9495322,9497263,9498016,9499963,9527063,9527094,9553950,9808257,9808641,9812687,9818250,9835454,9878677],"download_url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/10/20/20-55634.pdf","id":5125308,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/10/20/faour_fraihat_v._us_imm.__customs_enforcement.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T08:42:45.478877Z","date_created":"2021-11-11T21:00:45.234710Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"898ecd91548b4616058f9a26e3b8e81c7884d9fc","snippet":"                FOR PUBLICATION\n\n  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n       FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\n\nFAOUR ABDALLAH FRAIHAT; MARCO          No. 20-55634\nMONTOYA AMAYA; RAUL ALCOCER\nCHAVEZ; JOSE SEGOVIA BENITEZ;              D.C. No.\nHAMIDA ALI; MELVIN MURILLO             5:19-cv-01546-\nHERNANDEZ; JIMMY SUDNEY; JOSE             JGB-SHK\nBACA HERNANDEZ; EDILBERTO\nGARCIA GUERRERO; MARTIN\nMUNOZ; LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ             OPINION\nDELGADILLO; RUBEN DARIO\nMENCIAS SOTO; ALEX HERNANDEZ;\nARISTOTELES SA","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5125308],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Prisoner","syllabus":""}]}