{"count":111465,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0yNy41MzgxNyZzPTQzMzAyNzAmdD1vJmQ9MjAyNi0wOS0wNyZwPTI%3D&q=METHODS+AND+PROCEDURES+FOR+WITNESS+EXAMINATION+EXAMINATION+OF+WITNESSES&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1904802/college-entrance-examination-board-v-pataki/","attorney":"Sullivan & Cromwell, New York City, James H. Carter, Lori S. Sherman, of counsel, for plaintiff College Entrance Examination Bd., Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, DC, Thomas P. Olson, Susan P. Crawford, of counsel, for plaintiffs Graduate Record Examinations Bd., Test of English as a Foreign Language Policy Council, and Educ. Testing Service., Stanford von Mayrhauser, General Counsel, Educ. Testing Service, Princeton, NJ., Perkins & Coie, Washington, DC, John M. Devaney, of counsel, for plaintiff Graduate Management Admissions Council, Inc., Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, Rochester, NY, Harold A. Kurland, of counsel, for plaintiffs., Dennis C. Vaceo, Atty. Gen. for the State of N.Y., Albany, NY, David B. Roberts, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel, for defendants.","caseName":"College Entrance Examination Board v. Pataki","caseNameFull":"COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAMINATION BOARD; Graduate Management Admissions Council, Inc.; Test of English as a Foreign Language Policy Council; And Educational Testing Service, Plaintiffs, v. George E. PATAKI, as Governor of the State of New York; Thomas Sobol, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York; Regents of the University of the State of New York; Martin C. Barell, as Chancellor, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York; R. Carlos Carballada, as Vice Chancellor, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York; Jorge L. Batista, Shirley C. Brown, Laura Bradley Chodos, Walter Cooper, Willard A. Genrich, Norma Gluck, Emlyn I. Griffith, Carl T. Hayden, Mimi Levin Lieber, Floyd S. Linton, Gerald J. Lustig, Louise P. Matteoni, J. Edward Meyer and Adelaide L. Sanford, as Members of the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York; And Dennis C. Vacco, as Attorney General of the State of New York, Defendants","citation":["889 F. Supp. 554","1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8272","1995 WL 355656"],"citeCount":9,"cluster_id":1904802,"court":"District Court, N.D. New York","court_citation_string":"N.D.N.Y.","court_id":"nynd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1995-06-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"90-CV-437","docket_id":1506865,"judge":"McCURN","lexisCite":"1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8272","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T07:17:58.401150Z","date_created":"2015-10-13T21:29:28.380856Z","score":{"bm25":40.44272}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":2124,"cites":[104425,109628,110791,111062,111432,112420,112936,442186,451988,462597,516418,519154,580706,670687,1438695,1493684,1506010,1599622,1899453,2596791,6930168,6932466,8915084,8915994,8927954,8941460,8967402],"download_url":null,"id":1904802,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T13:48:53.609068Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T07:46:39.303650Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"796411ef7489636766de32148ef8a1b7bc8172ea","snippet":"\n889 F.Supp. 554 (1995)\nCOLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAMINATION BOARD; Graduate Management Admissions Council, Inc.; Test of English as a Foreign Language Policy Council; and Educational Testing Service, Plaintiffs,\nv.\nGeorge E. PATAKI, as Governor of the State of New York; Thomas Sobol, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York; Regents of the University of the State of New York; Martin C. Barell, as Chancellor, Board of Regents of the Universit","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1904802],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3207112/in-re-grand-jury-witness-gb-v-united-states/","attorney":"Murad Hussain, with whom Mary C. Kennedy, John St. Leger, and Joanna G. Persio, Washington, DC, were on the brief, for appellant., Karen P. Seifert, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Vincent H. Cohen, Jr., Acting United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and Elizabeth Trosman and Christine Macey, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief, for appellee.","caseName":"IN RE GRAND JURY WITNESS G.B. v. UNITED STATES","caseNameFull":"In Re Grand Jury Witness G.B. G.B., Appellant, v. United States, Appellee","citation":["139 A.3d 885","2016 WL 3031604","2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 170"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":3207112,"court":"District of Columbia Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"D.C.","court_id":"dc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-05-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"15-CO-531","docket_id":3067594,"judge":"Thompson, Easterly, Nebeker","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T18:37:06.477244Z","date_created":"2016-05-26T04:02:23.000597Z","score":{"bm25":39.197582}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9823584,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T07:58:53.032910Z","date_created":"2023-09-01T10:02:50.355091Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nTHOMPSON, Associate Judge:\nIn this appeal, appellant G.B., the victim of and witness to a stabbing, asks us to hold that “no valid investigative warrant may issue to forcibly take the DNA of a witness who is not suspected of the crime for which the DNA is sought.” We hold instead that, pursuant to Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 and consistent with the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant may issue authorizing the g","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[100567,104695,106357,107465,107912,108709,108801,109017,109338,109876,110061,110534,111380,112219,142878,145640,175207,281537,304900,543114,556527,597163,795900,797450,820749,873669,1147147,1228081,1338792,1954907,2115116,2543833],"download_url":"http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/15-CO-531.pdf","id":3207006,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2016/05/26/in_re_grand_jury_witness_g.b._v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T04:13:20.162846Z","date_created":"2016-05-26T04:02:23.010171Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"15d46834e698eb9fd8427b3a4b79a346add5da8c","snippet":"                               District of Columbia\n                                Court of Appeals\nNo. 15-CO-531\n\nIN RE GRAND JURY WITNESS G.B.;                                       MAY 26 2016\n      G.B.,\n                                         Appellant,\n\n         v.                                            CRW-102-16\n\nUNITED STATES,\n                                         Appellee.\n\n\n              On Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia\n                           ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3207006,9823584,9823585],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2362198/in-re-the-united-states-for-a-material-witness-warrant/","attorney":"James F. Comey, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Christopher Morvillo, Christine Chung, Celeste L. Koeleveld, Robin L. Baker, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, New York City., Neil S. Cartusciello, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, New York City, Attorney for Witness.","caseName":"In Re the United States for a Material Witness Warrant","caseNameFull":"In Re the APPLICATION OF the UNITED STATES FOR a MATERIAL WITNESS WARRANT, Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3144, for John Doe","citation":["213 F. Supp. 2d 287","2002 WL 1592739"],"citeCount":15,"cluster_id":2362198,"court":"District Court, S.D. New York","court_citation_string":"S.D.N.Y.","court_id":"nysd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2002-07-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"01 M. 1750(MBM)","docket_id":342355,"judge":"Mukasey","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T11:00:15.185575Z","date_created":"2015-10-14T22:51:48.943177Z","score":{"bm25":38.634594}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":2343,"cites":[84778,93234,94408,99422,105149,106881,108611,108734,108898,109442,109777,111601,112042,118373,239326,250576,266392,284931,299535,365876,406258,417961,448871,449534,460044,669543,679498,696316,732423,1481658,1498371,1687885,1894015,1967442,2355721,2518594,6983666],"download_url":null,"id":2362198,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T19:06:34.956534Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:15:00.764612Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2d227bf4bbbe0aac0e8cc9f98df5724dfd66a5ce","snippet":"\n213 F.Supp.2d 287 (2002)\nIn re the APPLICATION OF the UNITED STATES FOR A MATERIAL WITNESS WARRANT, Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3144, for John Doe.\nNo. 01 M. 1750(MBM).\nUnited States District Court, S.D. New York.\nJuly 11, 2002.\n*288 James F. Comey, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Christopher Morvillo, Christine","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2362198],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7334325/in-re-fin-oversight-mgmt-bd-for-puerto-rico/","attorney":"*189Julia D. Alonzo, Ehud Barak, Martin J. Bienenstock, Bradley R. Bobroff, Margaret A. Dale, Peter D. Doyle, Carl Forbes, Jr., Mark D. Harris, Jeffrey W. Levitan, Gregg M. Mashberg, Matthew J. Morris, Kevin J. Perra, Stephen L. Ratner, Brian S. Rosen, Scott Rutsky, Chris Theodoridis, Jared D. Zajac, Maja Zerjal, Proskauer Rose LLP, Lucia Chapman, Stephan E. Hornung, Michael Luskin, Luskin, Stern & Eisler LLP, New York, NY, Ginger D. Anders, Adele M. El-Khouri, Chad I. Golder, Rachel G. Miller Ziegler, Donald B. Verrilli, Munger, Tolles & Olsen LLP, Guy Brenner, Ann M. Ashton, Ralph C. Ferrara, Proskauer Rose LLP, Washington, DC, Hermann D. Bauer Alvarez, Ubaldo M. Fernandez Barrera, Carla Garcia Benitez, Daniel J. Perez Refojos, O'Neill & Borges, Wandymar Burgos Vargas, Susana I. Penagaricano-Brown, Puerto Rico Department of Justice, Raul Castellanos-Malave, Development & Construction Law Group LLC, Andres W. Lopez, The Law Offices of Andres W. Lopez, P.S.C., Katiuska Bolanos-Lugo, Cancio, Nadal, Rivera & Diaz, PSC, Ricardo Burgos Vargas, San Juan, PR, William D. Dalsen, Michael R. Hackett, Timothy W. Mungovan, Laura Stafford, Proskauer Rose LLP, Joseph P. Davis, III, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Boston, MA, Michael A. Firestein, Lary Alan Rappaport, Jennifer L. Roche, Steven O. Weise, Proskauer Rose LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Paul V. Possinger, Proskauer Rose LLP, Chicago, IL, for Debtors., Before the Court are cross memoranda of the Bank of New York Mellon (\"BNYM\") and Whitebox Multi-Strategy Partners, L.P. and certain of its affiliates (collectively, \"Whitebox\")2 regarding the questions presented for the Court by Section 19.5 of the Plan of Adjustment3 for COFINA. Section 19.5 requires the Court to determine whether and to what extent monies must be withheld from the distribution of Whitebox under the Plan of Adjustment to cover legal fees and expenses that BNYM may incur in connection with certain litigation that Whitebox has commenced. The memoranda were submitted in connection with procedures established by the Court. (See Docket Entry No. 4518.) BNYM also submitted evidentiary declarations in support of its position in the form of the Declaration of Daniel P. Goldberg, Esq. (Docket Entry No. 4600-1, the \"Goldberg Declaration\") and the Declaration of Robert M. Fishman, Esq. (Docket Entry No. 4601-1, the \"Fishman Declaration\" and, collectively with the Goldberg Declaration, the \"Declarations\"). The dispute initially also involved a third party, Ambac Assurance Corporation (\"Ambac\"). The Court held a hearing on this matter on January 17, 2019 (the \"Hearing\") in connection with the hearing related to confirmation of the Plan of Adjustment. At the Hearing, the parties informed the Court that Ambac and BNYM had reached an agreement and that \"Ambac [would] not be participating in the legal argument or the evidentiary part of the hearing.\" (Docket Entry No. 4850, Jan. 17, 2019 Hr'g Tr. at 140:23-141:3.) The Court heard argument from Whitebox and BNYM and BNYM introduced the Declarations into evidence. As explained below, the Court sustained BNYM's objection to Whitebox's effort to cross-examine the Declarants.4, II. Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling Precluding Cross-Examination, *191When asked by the Court if it had complied with the procedural orders, counsel for Whitebox informed the Court that it had not, in fact, made the required disclosures. (See Docket Entry No. 4965, the \"Glenn Declaration,\" ¶¶ 15-16.) Under such circumstances, this Court appropriately precluded Whitebox from cross-examining the Declarants. See Martinez-Serrano v. Quality Health Servs. of P.R., Inc., 568 F.3d 278, 283 (1st Cir. 2009) (\"It is a bedrock principle that federal trial courts possess wide-ranging authority to manage the conduct of litigation and, as a necessary corollary of that authority, to sanction litigants who fail to comply with court-imposed deadlines.\"). The Court did allow Whitebox to present its oral arguments in opposition to BNYM's position on Section 19.5., Twelve days after the Hearing, on January 29, 2019, Whitebox filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's ruling precluding the cross-examination of the Declarants. (See Docket Entry No. 4964, the Motion of Whitebox Multi-Strategy Partners, L.P. and Certain of Its Affiliates for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Precluding the Cross-Examination of Certain Witnesses .) Therein, Whitebox dissected the Court's various procedural orders, and concluded that it had, in fact, made timely disclosures, argued that if there was an error, it was unintentional, de minimis , and excusable under the circumstances, and further contended that allowing cross-examination would not prejudice any party and would benefit the Court. (See id. at 2-3.) Whitebox attached the depositions taken by Ambac and Whitebox of the Declarants in support of the contention that BNYM was on notice of their intention to cross-examine. (Glenn Decl. ¶ 5, Exs. A and B.) BNYM, representing that operational considerations in connection with planned distributions under the confirmed Plan of Adjustment require the resolution of the Section 19.5 issues before February 8, 2019, filed its objection to the motion for reconsideration on an expedited basis, continuing to argue that its analysis of the Court's orders establish that Whitebox did not comply with this Court's requirements, and further asserting that Whitebox failed to preserve any objection at the Hearing and did not make any offer of proof, thereby precluding review of the ruling. (Docket Entry No. 5066, the Objection of the Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee, to Whitebox's Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Order Sustaining an Evidentiary Objection During the Hearing of the Section 19.5 Dispute , at 3-9.) In addition, BNYM contended that, while Whitebox would not be harmed by a holdback under Section 19.5, delay would affect all of the bondholders since no distribution can be made until the Section 19.5 issues are resolved. (Id. at 13-14.) Whitebox filed its reply promptly, in accordance with the Court's expedited scheduling order. (Docket Entry No. 5073, the Reply of Whitebox Mutlti-Strategy Partners, L.P. and Certain of Its Affiliates in Further Support of Motion Seeking Reconsideration of the Court's Order Precluding the Cross-Examination of Certain Witnesses .), As noted above, Whitebox has submitted the depositions of the Declarants. The examinations at the depositions are presumably indicative of the cross-examination Whitebox would have pursued at the Hearing. As evidenced by the questioning, Whitebox and Ambac focused on the hypothetical nature of many of the underlying assumptions in the proposed budget, and challenged the investigation made into the scope of legal work to be done. Similarly, Ambac challenged the Declarants' assumptions and highlighted the deficiencies it perceived in their analyses in its Response Memorandum. (Docket Entry No. 4654, Memorandum of Ambac Assurance Corporation in Response to Declarations of the Bank of New York Mellon Pursuant to Section 19.5 of COFINA's Amended Title III Plan of Adjustment , at 5-12.)5 Neither Ambac nor Whitebox has provided the Court with an alternative proposed budget or examples of budgets in comparable litigation. In its motion for reconsideration and related filings, Whitebox has not made an offer of proof or indicated in any way that its cross-examination would elicit additional facts beyond those already in the record., In the interest of justice, the Court will consider the depositions of the Declarants as well as Ambac's filings in making its determinations on the Section 19.5 issues presented to the Court by Whitebox. See Anderson v. Brennan, 911 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 2018) (\"A district court's decision to reopen the record turns on flexible and case-specific criteria.\") (internal quotations and citation omitted). However, the Court will not allow further cross-examination as it will unnecessarily delay the proceedings for no purpose. It is clear to the Court that any cross-examination would focus on the amount of any holdback endorsed by this opinion, and Whitebox has not shown that it would elicit any facts not now before the Court. In light of the fact that Whitebox has not shown that allowing cross-examination would add any meaningful information to the record, and the fact that re-opening the Hearing would cause unnecessary delay and harm to many beneficiaries under the Plan of Adjustment, the motion for reconsideration is denied. The Court declines to analyze the multitude of filings to assess whether an argument can be made that, contrary to its representations to the Court, Whitebox did make timely disclosures., The Court has jurisdiction of the Plan of Adjustment Section 19.5 issues presented here pursuant to Section 306 of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act, 48 U.S.C. § 2101, etseq. (\"PROMESA\"). This decision constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law for the purposes of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052., *193Section 19.5 of the Plan of Adjustment provides in relevant part that the Court will determine what amounts, if any, will be withheld from or posted by Whitebox in order to satisfy potential litigation fees and expenses that might be incurred by BNYM in connection with lawsuits by Whitebox alleging that BNYM engaged in gross negligence, willful misconduct, and/or intentional fraud in connection with alleged events of default affecting COFINA bonds. These claims are not discharged through the Plan of Adjustment. Section 19.5 also provides that the Court is to determine whether BNYM is entitled to reimbursement for such expenses on a current basis or only upon the final disposition of the Whitebox Actions.6, Since Section 19.5 of the Plan of Adjustment deals with satisfaction of COFINA's obligation and BNYM's rights, if any, to payment of litigation fees and expenses incurred in connection with the Whitebox Actions7 , the Court first considers the parties' arguments as to whether there are any such obligations and rights of COFINA and BNYM, which serves as indenture Trustee for COFINA bonds, under the Resolution that created COFINA. The parties have presented conflicting interpretations of Sections 804, 1103, and 501 of the Resolution. Sections 1103 and 501 are expressly subject to Section 804. Therefore, this Court will address Section 804 first., Whitebox argues that legal fees and expenses relating to litigation concerning BNYM's performance of its duties are covered only by the indemnity granted in the second sentence of Section 804, and are outside the scope of the lien rights granted by the first sentence. Whitebox misapprehends the scope of the first sentence. The first sentence of Section 804 of the Resolution provides that COFINA shall pay BNYM \"from time to time reasonable compensation for all services rendered under the Resolution\" and that such payment includes expenses and charges \"of its attorneys, agents, and employees, incurred in and about the performance of their powers and duties under the Resolution.\" (Id. ) The Whitebox Actions focus on and are about BNYM's performance of its powers and duties as Trustee. BNYM's decisions as Trustee constitute the exercise of its powers and duties under the Resolution. Thus, legal fees and expenses associated with defense of litigation about or concerning such actions are contemplated by the language of the first sentence of Section 804., It is undisputed that the first sentence creates a charging lien for such fees and expenses by providing that \"the Trustee shall have a lien prior to that of the Bondowners and other Beneficiaries therefor on any and all funds at any time held by it under the Resolution.\" (Id. ) Because the legal fees and expenses at issue in this dispute are encompassed within the fees *195and expenses provided for by the first sentence, they are covered by that charging lien, giving BNYM a priority right to payment of those fees and expenses from the funds it is holding pursuant to the Resolution., The Court has considered Whitebox's argument that legal fees and expenses associated with litigation are only encompassed by the second sentence of Section 804, because only that sentence expressly mentions litigation, and that to conclude otherwise would render the second sentence superfluous. (See Docket Entry No. 4752, Reply of Whitebox Multi-Strategy Partners, L.P. and Certain of Its Affiliates to Memorandum of Law of the Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee, Regarding Section 19.5 of the Plan , ¶¶ 9-10.) Whitebox argues further that the fees and expenses included in the second sentence are not covered by a priority lien. (Id. ¶ 1.) The Court does not need to reach the issue of whether the indemnity provided for under the second sentence is also subject to a priority lien. As explained previously, the legal fees and expenses incurred in litigation concerning BNYM's performance of its duties are clearly within the scope of the first sentence of Section 804. Moreover, as the Court will now explain, the second sentence does not alter those indemnity rights and obligations., The second sentence of Section 804 builds or expands upon the types of harm against which COFINA must indemnify BNYM. For example, under the second sentence, COFINA must indemnify BNYM for damages which were not caused by BNYM's willful misconduct or gross negligence. The second sentence coexists with, and does not replace, COFINA's obligation under the first sentence to indemnify BNYM for legal fees and expenses incurred \"in and about the performance of their powers and duties under the Resolution.\" (Resolution § 804.) This is made clear by the fact that the second sentence of Section 804 begins with the words \"[t]he corporation further agrees to indemnify and save the Trustee harmless against any loss ....\" (Id. ) (emphasis added). The natural meaning of the word \"further\" in that sentence simply indicates an expansion of the indemnity provided for in the first sentence., The coordinated provisions of Section 804 make clear that COFINA's obligation to indemnify the Trustee, and the Trustee's right to receive such indemnification, are critical to the parties' relationship. Thus, the penultimate sentence of Section 804 provides: \"[t]he obligation of the Corporation and the lien provided for under this Section 804 shall survive the satisfaction and discharge of the bonds, the termination for any reason of the Resolution or the earlier resignation or removal of the Trustee.\" (Id. ) In addition, pursuant to the final sentence of Section 804, the \"Trustee shall not be required to expend any of its own funds in the execution of its duties pursuant to the provisions of this Resolution.\" (Id. ) With respect to litigation concerning the execution of the Trustee's duties under the Resolution, it is clear that the other provisions of Section 804 work with the payment right and charging lien granted in the first sentence of Section 804 to ensure that BNYM's right to payment of its legal fees and expenses is satisfied. This interpretation is consistent with case law and commercial practices that recognize that \"[u]nlike the ordinary trustee, who has historic common-law duties imposed beyond those in the trust agreement, an indenture trustee is more like a stakeholder whose duties and obligations are exclusively defined by the terms of the indenture agreement.\" Elliott Assocs. v. J. Henry Schroder Bank & Trust Co., 838 F.2d 66, 71 (2d Cir. 1988). It also gives the words and phrases of the Resolution their *196plain meaning, and construes the contract, as the Court must, \"so as to give full meaning and effect to all of its provisions.\" Lansuppe Feeder, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 15-7034-LTS, 2016 WL 5477741, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2016) (internal citations and quotations omitted). It would be inconsistent with the comprehensive and protective nature of the language of Section 804 to interpret the first sentence of Section 804 as narrowly as Whitebox proposes., Accordingly, the Court concludes that Section 804 of the Resolution imposes on COFINA the obligation to indemnify BNYM for litigation fees and expenses incurred in the Whitebox Actions, unless BNYM is actually found responsible for gross negligence or willful misconduct. The Court further concludes that under Section 804, BNYM has an express lien prior to that of Bondholders and other Beneficiaries securing this payment right on \"all funds\" that BNYM holds \"at any time\" under the Resolution. (Resolution § 804.) The primacy of this lien is confirmed by the incorporation of Section 804 in Sections 501 and 1103 of the Resolution., Having determined that COFINA has the obligation to indemnify BNYM for its litigation fees and expenses, and that BNYM has a charging lien on COFINA funds to protect its right to those payments, the next inquiry is whether BNYM can hold back these fees and expenses from the distributions to Whitebox. Section 19.5 of the Plan of Adjustment makes provision for satisfaction of COFINA's obligations by requiring that the funds necessary to spend in responding to the Whitebox Actions be held back from the distributions to be made to Whitebox. These withheld distributions, according to Section 19.5, are the source of funds to be used to \"satisfy in full any obligations of COFINA and any rights of BNYM.\" (Plan of Adjustment § 19.5.) This provision of the Plan of Adjustment was not challenged in any objection and is a binding element of the confirmed Plan. Because Section 19.5 defines the treatment of the COFINA funds in BNYM's possession, and mandates a holdback before any distributions, Whitebox has no right to receive its full distribution in respect of Existing Securities at this time. Rather, Whitebox's distribution is to be net of the amount, if any, that the Court determines is necessary to satisfy COFINA's obligation and BNYM's rights in respect of anticipated litigation fees and expenses in connection with the Whitebox Actions., Whitebox's contention that it cannot be the subject of a holdback because it never separately assumed any obligations of COFINA, and its reliance on the legal reasoning in Becker v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., N.A., 172 F.Supp.3d 777 (E.D. Pa. 2016), is misplaced. Unlike in Becker, where the issue of reducing a bondholder's distribution to cover the trustee's litigation costs arose after plan confirmation, and after the distribution of the debtor's assets pursuant to a plan that made no explicit provision for such a reduction, the holdback issue is presented here in connection with a plan of adjustment that expressly provides that certain of COFINA's indemnity obligations will be satisfied through pre-distribution withholding of funds that would otherwise go to Whitebox. The Plan of Adjustment obligates *197Whitebox to suffer withholding, or to post collateral, as directed by the Court, sufficient to satisfy COFINA's obligation and to fulfill BNYM's right to reimbursement. Whitebox did not object to confirmation of the Plan of Adjustment, which was accepted by the requisite proportions of bondholders, has now been confirmed, and is binding on Whitebox., The next issue presented is the amount that BNYM is entitled to withhold to cover COFINA's obligation to indemnify BNYM for legal fees and expenses associated with the Whitebox Actions., BNYM has proffered the Goldberg Declaration an experienced litigator familiar with fee arrangements and complex financial litigation. He estimated the range of fees and expenses to be between approximately $25 million and $40 million, with a midpoint of approximately $32.5 million, for the defense of all possible phases of the Ambac Action and the Whitebox Actions. (Goldberg Decl. ¶ 151.) BNYM also proffered the Fishman Declaration, another experienced litigator with relevant experience as a fee examiner in complex restructuring matters, who opines that \"under the circumstances presented, the proposed holdback for the Anticipated Litigation is reasonable, and there exist effective protections for [ ] Whitebox even if the amount of the Reserve Fund exceeds the amount of fees and expenses actually to be paid.\" (Fishman Decl. ¶ 42.) These protections include refunds of unused amounts and the ability to challenge the reasonableness of the expenditures that are made. While Whitebox has not proffered alternative projected computations, the Court has weighed carefully concerns, originally expressed by Ambac prior to its withdrawal from this dispute and as explored in the Declarants' depositions, about the reasonableness of assumptions underlying Mr. Goldberg's analysis, as well as the argument that BNYM has improperly minimized the amount of relevant legal and factual work that has already been done on the underlying issue of default, and greatly inflated the amount of factual and legal work remaining before the relevant issues in the Whitebox Actions can be finally resolved. The Court finds that Mr. Goldberg's high-end assumptions as to the extent and cost of discovery, especially discovery concerning the existence of the alleged defaults that were the subject of the summary judgment motion practice in the Interpleader Action, and as to the likelihood that every possible litigation event will actually take place, are excessive. The Court further finds that Ambac's withdrawal from the litigation warrants reduction of the proposed budget., *198The Whitebox Actions basically present the issues of whether there have been events of default, how BNYM responded to any events of default, and whether, if the response was improper, the impropriety rose to the level of gross negligence or willful misconduct on the part of BNYM. Extensive relevant discovery has already taken place in connection with the Interpleader Action, and relevant summary judgment pleadings on the issue of the existence of certain alleged defaults have already been researched, drafted and filed. The history of this litigation establishes that the parties can focus their discovery when necessary, albeit sometimes with the assistance of the Court, and present critical issues to the Court efficiently and expeditiously. On the other hand, Whitebox has to date declined to give BNYM insight into key issues relevant to the scope and basis of Whitebox's claims, and BNYM is reasonable in estimating significant litigation costs in connection with issues concerning the reasonableness of its own conduct and the basis of any damages claimed by Whitebox. (Id. ¶ 40.) The Court also considers the fact that, in view of the Ambac settlement, the holdback no longer needs to make provision for coverage of additional costs associated with the simultaneous defense of overlapping actions brought by two plaintiffs., Based on this Court's review of the pleadings, familiarity with the progress of the Whitebox Actions and the PROMESA cases, and its own experience with fee petitions in complex litigation, the Court finds that the low-end estimate proffered by BNYM is the most appropriate starting benchmark insofar as it is based on reasonable fee assumptions and lower litigation activity assumptions.8 However, even the low-end estimate assumes an intensity to the litigation schedule of the Whitebox Actions that is objectively likely to overestimate the necessary costs. Specifically, the Court finds it necessary to discount Mr. Goldberg's estimate as to post-trial expenses, as his analysis assumes a number of post-trial possibilities, and it is unlikely that each and every one of those events would occur. (See id. ¶¶ 128-141.) Accordingly, the Court adopts Mr. Goldberg's lower reasonable estimates through trial and discounts those post-trial estimates by seventy-five percent. Applying such a discount, the Court's re-calculation of the low-end estimate equals $22,200,400.9 Further, the Court finds just cause to further discount these estimates to account for the fact that they should no longer include the Ambac Action. While there are significant overlaps between the two sets of litigation, it is reasonable to expect some savings from only proceeding with one. Accordingly, the Court discounts the holdback amount further and sets the final amount at $20 million. BNYM shall hold these monies in a segregated account, and retain them subject to disbursements as authorized by this decision, until the Whitebox Actions are finally concluded.10, *199The Court now turns to the question of whether BNYM is entitled to be reimbursed for fees and expenses on a current basis during the life of the Whitebox Actions, or whether BNYM must await a final determination in its favor on the merits before it is entitled to recoup its fees and costs. Section 804 of the Resolution provides that BNYM has a right to payment \"from time to time,\" and that the \"Trustee shall not be required to expend any of its own funds in the execution of its duties.\" (Resolution § 804.) Reading these provisions together, the Court concludes that BNYM is entitled to current payment of its reasonable attorney's fees and expenses. Otherwise, BNYM would have to expend its own funds throughout the course of litigation about the exercise of its duties under the Resolution. The Resolution's language recognizing that BNYM is not required to expend any of its own funds in the execution of its duties expressly rejects such an out-of-pocket obligation as to covered expenses., Whitebox's argument that the Resolution does not entitle BNYM to payment unless and until BNYM has proven that it was not grossly negligent or did not engage in willful misconduct is unavailing, as it stands the clear language of the Resolution on its head. The Resolution does not provide that BNYM is paid only if and when it proves that its conduct was not wrongful. Instead, the Resolution provides that BNYM has a right to be paid unless the challengers prove that its conduct was wrongful. The use of the present tense in the Resolution's provision providing that BNYM shall be indemnified \"except to the extent that such loss ... is due to its own gross negligence or willful misconduct\" indicates that the exception requires actual proof and a finding of wrongful conduct before exception from payment rights is triggered. (Resolution § 804.) The protections of Section 804 would be meaningless if BNYM were forced to expend its own funds to defend against accusations that may ultimately fail. The Resolution does not allocate the risk to BNYM; instead, BNYM is protected by rights to security and current payment. Whitebox is protected by its ability to seek disgorgement in connection with a decision in its favor and its ability to challenge the reasonableness of BNYM's expenditures at the conclusion of the litigation. Finally, requiring current payments is consistent with case law recognizing that a party does not have to wait until the end of litigation for compensation where, as here, the defendant would have the resources to reimburse the plaintiff if necessary. See Royal Park Invs. SA/NV v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, No. 14-2590, 356 F.Supp.3d 287, 299-300, 2018 WL 6920768, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2018)., In accordance with this Order, BNYM is authorized to withhold $20 million, to be withdrawn from the funds otherwise payable to Whitebox. The funds shall be kept in a segregated account until final resolution of the Whitebox Actions, subject to withdrawals as relevant expenses are incurred. The parties are instructed to meet and confer to develop a method by which BNYM shall document and account for such withdrawals, and to identify an appropriately liquid and stable income-producing vehicle for the investment of the holdback funds.","caseName":"In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico","caseNameFull":"IN RE: The FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, as Representative of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Debtors. In re: The Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, as Representative of Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation, Debtor.","citation":["361 F. Supp. 3d 186"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7334325,"court":"United States District Court","court_citation_string":"","court_id":"usdistct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-02-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 17 BK 3283-LTS (Jointly Administered); No. 17 BK 3284-LTS","docket_id":64322811,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:40:22.101208Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T06:12:03.445129Z","score":{"bm25":38.54236}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7252245,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-25T00:18:54.770694Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T06:12:03.450168Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nThis Order resolves Docket Entry Nos. 4844 and 4964 in Case No. 17-3283 and Docket Entry No. 519 in Case No. 17-3284.\nSO ORDERED.\n","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7252245],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10850555/in-re-rev-of-the-power-purchase-agreement-rider-of-ohio-power-co-for-2018/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Rev. of the Power-Purchase-Agreement Rider of Ohio Power Co. for 2018 and 2019","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2026 Ohio 1485"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":10850555,"court":"Ohio Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Ohio","court_id":"ohio","court_jurisdiction":"S","dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2026-04-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2024-1735","docket_id":73260801,"judge":"Fischer","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-29T21:45:02.153564Z","date_created":"2026-04-29T21:14:31.995654Z","score":{"bm25":32.476913}},"neutralCite":"2026 Ohio 1485","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2026/2026-Ohio-1485.pdf","id":11317936,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2026/04/29/in_re_rev._of_the_power-purchase-agreement_rider_of_ohio_power_co._for_2018_2.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-29T21:46:59.032798Z","date_created":"2026-04-29T21:14:32.053331Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a11322a99f040add5cc17afa81093f2aa65b6d64","snippet":"[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In\nre Rev. of the Power-Purchase-Agreement Rider of Ohio Power Co. for 2018 and 2019, Slip\nOpinion No. 2026-Ohio-1485.]\n\n\n\n\n                                         NOTICE\n   This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an\n   advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to\n   promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South\n   Fro","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2026/2026-Ohio-1485.pdf","id":11317502,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2026/04/29/in_re_rev._of_the_power-purchase-agreement_rider_of_ohio_power_co._for_2018.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-15T01:08:22.102992Z","date_created":"2026-04-29T13:33:10.457042Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"67e91d735eaf540fe36a73fe05e560133d007895","snippet":"[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In\nre Rev. of the Power-Purchase-Agreement Rider of Ohio Power Co. for 2018 and 2019, Slip\nOpinion No. 2026-Ohio-1485.]\n\n\n\n\n                                         NOTICE\n   This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an\n   advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to\n   promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South\n   Fro","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2026/2026-Ohio-1485.pdf","id":11317831,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2026/04/29/in_re_rev._of_the_power-purchase-agreement_rider_of_ohio_power_co._for_2018_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-15T01:08:41.890637Z","date_created":"2026-04-29T19:27:34.277043Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c57789c51703468403d536fe9e5bcfdcc06325f8","snippet":"[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In\nre Rev. of the Power-Purchase-Agreement Rider of Ohio Power Co. for 2018 and 2019, Slip\nOpinion No. 2026-Ohio-1485.]\n\n\n\n\n                                         NOTICE\n   This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an\n   advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to\n   promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South\n   Fro","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11317936,11317502,11317831],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Public utilities—Public Utilities Commission did not commit reversible error in deciding to credit evidence showing that a must-run strategy for operating two coal plants was prudent when the decision to utilize that strategy was made—Commission did not violate procedural due process or Adm.Code 4901-1-28(E) in denying party's motion for subpoena to compel commission staff member to appear and testify at commission's hearing, because testimony presented by other witnesses covered the topic of concern and the party had an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses—Commission did not err in failing to apply an appearance-of-impropriety standard when considering whether auditor was prevented from conducting an independent audit—Orders affirmed."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4772511/in-re-order-amending-rules-115-and-1012-of-the-pennsylvania-rules-of/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Order Amending Rules 115 and 1012 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4772511,"court":"Supreme Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa.","court_id":"pa","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-08-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"522 Criminal Procedural Rules Docket","docket_id":17409620,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:20:03.054348Z","date_created":"2020-08-03T19:11:30.335389Z","score":{"bm25":30.680319}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/Attachment - 104502323108139704.pdf","id":4552858,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/08/03/in_re_order_amending_rules_115_and_1012_of_the_pennsylvania_rules_of_2.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T19:11:56.472786Z","date_created":"2020-08-03T19:11:30.337788Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b8506c332154ce916fe50293f1b993514aad352c","snippet":"RULE 115. RECORDING AND TRANSCRIBING COURT PROCEEDINGS.\n\n(A) In court cases, after a defendant has been held for court, proceedings in open court\nshall be recorded.\n\n(B) [Upon the motion of any party, upon its own motion, or as required by law, the\ncourt shall determine and designate those portions of the record, if any, that are\nto be transcribed.] The transcript shall be requested in accordance with Pa.R.J.A.\nNo. 4007.\n\n(C) At any time before an appeal is taken the [court may correct or modify","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4552858],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10278799/in-re-appeal-for-formation-of-independent-sd/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Appeal for Formation of Independent SD","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10278799,"court":"Supreme Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa.","court_id":"pa","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-10-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"59 MAP 2020","docket_id":69396594,"judge":"Donohue, Christine","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-11-21T00:43:30.792280Z","date_created":"2024-11-21T00:43:30.742743Z","score":{"bm25":29.48866}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1941460,2549643,4118580,6374257],"download_url":"https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-4B-2021mo - 104917297148523206.pdf","id":10745387,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/10/07/in_re_appeal_for_formation_of_independent_sd.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T18:51:35.337465Z","date_created":"2024-11-21T00:43:30.751670Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"de1b347a0e05649f2843d1e8f2fe885f909c4ed8","snippet":"                             [J-4A-2021 and J-4B-2021]\n                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n                                 MIDDLE DISTRICT\n\n   BAER, C.J., SAYLOR, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.\n\n\n IN RE: APPEAL FOR FORMATION OF                   :   No. 58 MAP 2020\n INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT                      :\n CONSISTING OF THE BOROUGH OF                     :   Appeal from the Order of the\n HIGHSPIRE, DAUPHIN COUNTY,                       :   Commonweal","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10745387],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10278800/in-re-appeal-for-formation-of-independent-sd/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Appeal for Formation of Independent SD","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10278800,"court":"Supreme Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa.","court_id":"pa","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-10-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"58 MAP 2020","docket_id":69396595,"judge":"Donohue, Christine","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-11-21T00:43:31.663343Z","date_created":"2024-11-21T00:43:31.406902Z","score":{"bm25":29.347105}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1941460,2549643,4118580,6374257],"download_url":"https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-4A-2021mo - 104917296148521363.pdf","id":10745388,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/10/07/in_re_appeal_for_formation_of_independent_sd_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T18:51:35.323493Z","date_created":"2024-11-21T00:43:31.415013Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"81e76b31d66a8ad1fc81660db85ceff2b0fbd52e","snippet":"                             [J-4A-2021 and J-4B-2021]\n                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n                                 MIDDLE DISTRICT\n\n   BAER, C.J., SAYLOR, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.\n\n\n IN RE: APPEAL FOR FORMATION OF                   :   No. 58 MAP 2020\n INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT                      :\n CONSISTING OF THE BOROUGH OF                     :   Appeal from the Order of the\n HIGHSPIRE, DAUPHIN COUNTY,                       :   Commonweal","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10745388],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10338048/foundation-for-the-advancement-of-catholic-schools-inc-v-blair/","attorney":"","caseName":"Foundation for the Advancement of Catholic Schools, Inc. v. Blair","caseNameFull":"","citation":["230 Conn. App. 793"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":10338048,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-02-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC46603","docket_id":69665211,"judge":"Seeley; Westbrook; Prescott","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:47:37.639735Z","date_created":"2025-02-24T13:02:33.792864Z","score":{"bm25":29.322195}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[101466,526043,796678,1998773,2056575,2163348,2268907,2326915,2504176,3216078,3267256,3442770,4036068,4088417,4127106,4548873,4572960,4880279,5115009,5754866,5814976,6346805,6495362,6931049,7873281,8788050,9057016,9225807,9416862,9423900,9426469,9427702,9770105,9896946,9960393,10598380],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP230/AP230.110.pdf","id":10804636,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/02/25/foundation_for_the_advancement_of_catholic_schools_inc._v._blair.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-08T01:55:18.468439Z","date_created":"2025-02-24T13:02:33.794586Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"13c02708c688749c274e0acd0743a898780f4d4e","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":"Action for a declaratory judgment, inter alia, determin- ing whether the appointment of certain trustees to the 0 Conn. App. 793 ,0 3 Foundation for the Advancement of Catholic Schools, Inc. v. Blair named plaintiff's board of trustees by the named defen- dant was in compliance with its bylaws and other gov- erning documents, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, where the trial court, Noble, J., granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and ren- dered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiffs appealed to this court. Reversed; further proceedings. James M. Moriarty, with whom, on the brief, was Eric Henzy, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Hannah F. Kalichman, with whom, on the brief, was Richard P. Colbert, for the appellees (defendants). Michael E. Roberts, former human rights attorney, filed a brief for the Commission of Human Rights & Opportunities as amicus curiae.","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10804636],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiffs, a corporation and five members of its board of trustees, appealed from the trial court's judgment dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, their declaratory judgment action that sought, inter alia, an interpretation of the corporation's bylaws governing the appointment of trustees to its board. The plaintiffs, who had commenced the action after certain appointments to the board were made by the named defendant, the former archbishop of the diocese of Hartford, claimed that the court erred in determining that exercising jurisdiction over the action would have vio- lated the free exercise and establishment clauses of the first amendment to the United States constitution because adjudicating the dispute would have resulted in the excessive entanglement of government and religion. Held: The trial court improperly granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of its determination that the plaintiffs' action asked the court to entangle itself in matters of religious doctrine and practice and church polity, as there was no first amendment barrier prohibiting the court from applying neutral principles of state law governing corporations to the secular language of the corporation's bylaws for the purpose of declaring the process to be followed in appointing board members and determining the validity of certain appointments to the board. This court declined to adjudicate the defendants' alternative grounds for affirming the judgment, specifically, that the plaintiffs' lacked standing to bring the action, because doing so would have required a resolution of disputed jurisdictional facts, which require an evidentiary hearing, and, thus, the case was remanded to the trial court for consideration of those standing claims and a hearing thereon. Argued October 7, 2024—officially released February 25, 2025"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4725489/in-re-adoption-of-rules-for-continuing-judicial-education/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Adoption of Rules for Continuing Judicial Education","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4725489,"court":"Supreme Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa.","court_id":"pa","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-02-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"827 Supreme Court Rules","docket_id":16819178,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:07:50.964007Z","date_created":"2020-02-07T20:09:21.540349Z","score":{"bm25":28.727936}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/Attachment - 10432842894337411.pdf","id":4505816,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/02/07/in_re_adoption_of_rules_for_continuing_judicial_education_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T18:39:21.422092Z","date_created":"2020-02-07T20:09:21.543844Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"fd41d2aaeff3741781c2cf48e4459d344ae5dfc2","snippet":"         PENNSYLVANIA RULES FOR CONTINUING JUDICIAL EDUCATION\n\n\nRule 101. Title and Citation\nRule 102. General\n\nRule 201. Continuing Judicial Education Board of Judges\nRule 202. Composition and Terms of the Board\nRule 203. Compensation, Expenses, and Immunity\nRule 204. Powers and Duties of the Board\nRule 205. Quorum and Votes\nRule 206. Confidentiality\n\nRule 301. Continuing Judicial Education Requirement\nRule 302. Course Attendance and Alternatives\nRule 303. Standards for Approved Courses or Acti","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4505816],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10129064/in-the-matter-of-the-application-by-minnesota-power-for-authority-to/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Matter of the Application by Minnesota Power for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in Minnesota. ...","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10129064,"court":"Court of Appeals of Minnesota","court_citation_string":"Minn. Ct. App.","court_id":"minnctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-09-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"a230867","docket_id":69220523,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-10-02T21:08:31.012163Z","date_created":"2024-10-02T21:08:30.962138Z","score":{"bm25":28.632654}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[100254,112169,1717266,1819094,1920711,2219172],"download_url":"https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2024/OPa230867-090924.pdf","id":10595665,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/09/09/in_the_matter_of_the_application_by_minnesota_power_for_authority_to.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T18:18:44.727465Z","date_created":"2024-10-02T21:08:30.966071Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"97919b5fbc1a29601dead9db4e284eed49770db8","snippet":"                              STATE OF MINNESOTA\n                              IN COURT OF APPEALS\n                                    A23-0867\n                                    A23-0871\n                                    A23-1957\n\n                In the Matter of the Application by Minnesota Power for\n              Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in Minnesota.\n\n                              Filed September 9, 2024\n                  Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and rem","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10595665],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"1. A utility's mandatory contributions to its pension plan are an \"expense[] of a capital nature\" to which the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission must give \"due consideration\" in determining the utility's rate base under Minn. Stat. § 216B.16, subd. 6 (2022). 2. A decision of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission that categorically and entirely excludes a prepaid pension asset from a utility's rate base is unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary and capricious when the commission does not adequately explain the reasons for its decision or its reasons for departing from the contrary findings and recommendation of an administrative-law judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6240648/sacramentans-for-fair-planning-v-city-of-sacramento/","attorney":"Michael W. Graf for Plaintiff and Appellant., Office of the City Attorney, Susana A. Wood and Brett Morgan Witter; Jarvis, Fay & Gibson, Rick W. Jarvis, Oakland, and Christine L. Crowl Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent., Taylor & Wiley, John M. Taylor, James B. Wiley, Sacramento, and Matthew Steven Keasling for Real Party in Interest and Respondent., Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Kirk E. Trost for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.","caseName":"Sacramentans for Fair Planning v. City of Sacramento","caseNameFull":"SACRAMENTANS FOR FAIR PLANNING, and v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, and Respondent 2500 J Owners, LLC, Real Party in Interest and","citation":["250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 261","37 Cal. App. 5th 698"],"citeCount":18,"cluster_id":6240648,"court":"California Court of Appeal, 5th District","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App. 5th","court_id":"calctapp5d","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-07-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"C086182","docket_id":62615981,"judge":"Hull","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T08:46:01.231854Z","date_created":"2022-01-21T16:34:58.510485Z","score":{"bm25":28.61718}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[100934,111507,1037007,1122731,1148416,1159818,1373838,1398668,1436310,1436563,1441925,2113153,2137199,2142088,2170830,2179384,2202153,2245036,2246146,2250915,2255326,2275424,2277794,2281169,2287346,2288041,2298049,2307220,2632447,2718175,2808343,3219168,3299908,3303983,4093430,4103136,4185988,4354118,5451424,5451793,5665914],"download_url":null,"id":6107610,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T05:18:16.539346Z","date_created":"2022-01-21T16:34:58.542001Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nHULL, Acting P. J.\n*704Plaintiff Sacramentans for Fair Planning contends the City of Sacramento violated zoning law and the California Environmental Quality Act ( Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. (CEQA)) when it approved entitlements for real party 2500 J Owners, LLC, to construct a high-rise condominium building in the City's Midtown are","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6107610],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9440150/state-of-wa-dept-of-labor-and-industries-v-a-place-for-rover-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"State Of Wa, Dept Of Labor And Industries, V A Place For Rover, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9440150,"court":"Court of Appeals of Washington","court_citation_string":"Wash. Ct. App.","court_id":"washctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-06-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"56929-9","docket_id":68004654,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:17:02.949074Z","date_created":"2023-11-14T19:27:30.608768Z","score":{"bm25":28.598948}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1364792,1393934,2519635,2612274,4712288,4716253,4716868,4764646,5124718,9627789],"download_url":"https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2056929-9-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf","id":9897975,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/06/06/state_of_wa_dept_of_labor_and_industries_v_a_place_for_rover_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-29T06:36:06.777890Z","date_created":"2023-11-14T19:27:30.610100Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b6762d1c8dbce6d9bc966293401204c392854acd","snippet":"                             NOTICE: SLIP OPINION\n                      (not the court’s final written decision)\n\n\nThe opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the\nwritten opinions that are originally filed by the court.\nA slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions\ncan be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an\norder making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential\npur","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9897975],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8404914/reporters-committee-for-freedom-of-the-press-v-federal-bureau-of/","attorney":"","caseName":"Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Federal Bureau of Investigation","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8404914,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-10-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2017-1701","docket_id":65596103,"judge":"Judge Rudolph Contreras","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T18:57:58.883091Z","date_created":"2022-10-21T16:01:19.037255Z","score":{"bm25":28.577265}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":710,"cites":[134730,185496,186064,186972,187254,187269,397837,442963,556586,586798,709483,1735386,2331249,2340820,2380132,2574453,2650503,2656711,2659078,2659395,2660135,4154865,4288400,4553636,4700846,5130056,6500344,6983271,7247376,7247462,7252913,9426368,9431814,9432431,9464311,9470174],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2017cv1701-73","id":8375257,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/10/21/reporters_committee_for_freedom_of_the_press_v._federal_bureau_of.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T03:52:15.277429Z","date_created":"2022-10-21T16:01:19.098212Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"cb12491c54063d8e2f8300e3b4a3ccc3b8546996","snippet":"                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\nREPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR          :\nFREEDOM OF THE PRESS,            :\n                                 :\n        Plaintiff,               :                      Civil Action No.:      17-1701 (RC)\n                                 :\n        v.                       :                      Re Document Nos.:      64, 65\n                                 :\nFEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, :","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8375257],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2185867/payment-of-witness-fees-in-state-v-huisman/","attorney":"On behalf of appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of and orally argued by John C. Jacques assistant corporation counsel, of Green Bay., On behalf of respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of assistant state public defenders Kenneth P. Casey of Madison, William G. Retert of Fond du Lac and Henry R. Schulz of Green Bay; and the amicus curiae brief of Kenneth P. Casey. The cause was orally argued by Kenneth P. Casey.","caseName":"PAYMENT OF WITNESS FEES IN STATE v. Huisman","caseNameFull":"In the MATTER OF the PAYMENT OF WITNESS FEES IN STATE v. HUISMAN: BROWN COUNTY, Appellant, v. STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER, Respondent","citation":["482 N.W.2d 665","167 Wis. 2d 168","1992 Wisc. App. LEXIS 114"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":2185867,"court":"Court of Appeals of Wisconsin","court_citation_string":"Wis. Ct. App.","court_id":"wisctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1992-02-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"91-1492","docket_id":781010,"judge":"Cane, LaROCQUE, LaRocque, Myse","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T09:35:04.447903Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T12:12:54.194572Z","score":{"bm25":28.148052}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[111356,1854163,1855924,1921164,2232184],"download_url":null,"id":2185867,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T18:03:22.052962Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:33:27.812090Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a9eede9fab7ef536d5119042f4698b54b5e9dc79","snippet":"\n167 Wis.2d 168 (1992)\n482 N.W.2d 665\nIN the MATTER OF the PAYMENT OF WITNESS FEES IN STATE\nv.\nHUISMAN: BROWN COUNTY, Appellant,\nv.\nSTATE PUBLIC DEFENDER, Respondent.\nNo. 91-1492.\nCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin.\nOral argument January 29, 1992.\nDecided February 11, 1992.\n*170 On behal","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[8481,8499,8503],"panel_names":["Thomas Cane","Daniel L. Larocque","Gordon Myse"],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2185867],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4427988/revising-comment-to-rule-578-of-the-pa-r-crim-pro/","attorney":"","caseName":"Revising Comment to Rule 578 of the Pa. R. Crim. Pro.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4427988,"court":"Supreme Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa.","court_id":"pa","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-09-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"494 Criminal Procedural Rules Docket","docket_id":6156048,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:42:26.180792Z","date_created":"2017-09-21T19:18:33.017561Z","score":{"bm25":27.787899}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[112903,118271,765510,796065],"download_url":"http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/23964900.pdf","id":4205241,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/09/21/revising_comment_to_rule_578_of_the_pa._r._crim._pro..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:10:26.138952Z","date_created":"2017-09-21T19:18:33.024564Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"edd91612d0c08dd8edb8c66c6b13e8ed221fa6e4","snippet":"                                      FINAL REPORT1\n\n\n                      Revisions to the Comment to Pa.R.Crim.P. 578\n\n\n       PRETRIAL RESOLUTION OF ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY\n\n\n\n       On September 21, 2017, effective January 1, 2018, upon the recommendation of\nthe Criminal Procedural Rules Committee, the Court approved the revision of the\nComment to Rule 578 (Omnibus Pretrial Motion for Relief) to encourage the pre-trial\nresolution of the admissibility of scientific or expert eviden","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4205241],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9394333/treva-thompson-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-state-of-alabama/","attorney":"","caseName":"Treva Thompson v. Secretary of State for the State of Alabama","caseNameFull":"","citation":["65 F.4th 1288"],"citeCount":9,"cluster_id":9394333,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","court_citation_string":"11th Cir.","court_id":"ca11","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":"2021-11-16","dateFiled":"2023-04-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-10034","docket_id":61464837,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:52:58.296796Z","date_created":"2023-04-26T15:01:30.205665Z","score":{"bm25":27.584206}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[76927,77400,102987,105899,111103,111413,276628,343570,354114,421681,433122,433870,498024,628328,785940,1362704,1452064,1646808,1737719,1795715,2143762,2346306,4019039,4263175,4277892,4287784,4379419,4438007,4508421,4565545,4676069,4692447,6226226,6329161,6511925,7892046,9421263,9421564,9422032,9422070,9422536,9422829,9424624,9426032,9426431,9426633,9427563,9427876,9428197,9429208,9430781,9431657,9432400,9432667,9432842,9432895,9433265,9433350,9433421,9433499,9433542,9434392,9438554,9440441,9440609,9441864,9469762,9491273,9515886,9842000,9888811],"download_url":"http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202110034.pdf","id":9389809,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/04/26/treva_thompson_v._secretary_of_state_for_the_state_of_alabama.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T20:13:15.285521Z","date_created":"2023-04-26T15:01:30.207185Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9686946c63300e682f713d4c270a666ef9bb246b","snippet":"USCA11 Case: 21-10034      Document: 78-1      Date Filed: 04/26/2023    Page: 1 of 106\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. 21-10034\n                             ____________________\n\n        TREVA THOMPSON,\n        ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9389809],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"NEW","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9479408/in-re-interstate-subpoena-for-thompson/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re: Interstate Subpoena for Thompson","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9479408,"court":"Court of Special Appeals of Maryland","court_citation_string":"Md. Ct. Spec. App.","court_id":"mdctspecapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-01-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"1545/23","docket_id":68212573,"judge":"Arthur","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:26:22.162794Z","date_created":"2024-02-28T21:08:07.268925Z","score":{"bm25":27.57158}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[103542,1232435,1506391,1509698,2117687,2273019,2343654,2351327,2395559,2721908,5488548,6450381,7920051,7921067,7958567],"download_url":"https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2024/1545s23.pdf","id":9946021,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/01/31/in_re_interstate_subpoena_for_thompson_2.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:30:18.802448Z","date_created":"2024-02-28T21:08:07.279056Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"bdf38fc7e6b4315e69a3beaf5095603de24ec324","snippet":"In re: Interstate Subpoena for Jamie Leigh Thompson, No. 1545, Sept. Term 2023.\nOpinion by Arthur, J.\n\nUNIFORM ACT TO SECURE THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES FROM\nWITHOUT A STATE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS – ENFORCEABILITY OF\nSUBPOENA ON OUT-OF-STATE WITNESS\n\nThe Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in\nCriminal Proceedings is codified in Maryland as Md. Code (1974, 2020 Repl. Vol.), § 9-\n302(a) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”). To obtain the testimon","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9946021],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9470940/in-re-interstate-subpoena-for-thompson/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re: Interstate Subpoena for Thompson","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9470940,"court":"Court of Special Appeals of Maryland","court_citation_string":"Md. Ct. Spec. App.","court_id":"mdctspecapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-01-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"1545/23","docket_id":68212573,"judge":"Arthur","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:24:20.333519Z","date_created":"2024-01-31T22:06:31.369406Z","score":{"bm25":27.57158}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[103542,1232435,1506391,1509698,2117687,2273019,2343654,2351327,2395559,2721908,5488548,6450381,7920051,7921067,7958567],"download_url":"https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2024/1545s23.pdf","id":9928778,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/01/31/in_re_interstate_subpoena_for_thompson.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:15:37.194819Z","date_created":"2024-01-31T22:06:31.382813Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"efbfbdb6112961b1b36fb799af6ce0f47d7fa8d1","snippet":"In re: Interstate Subpoena for Jamie Leigh Thompson, No. 1545, Sept. Term 2023.\nOpinion by Arthur, J.\n\nUNIFORM ACT TO SECURE THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES FROM\nWITHOUT A STATE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS – ENFORCEABILITY OF\nSUBPOENA ON OUT-OF-STATE WITNESS\n\nThe Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in\nCriminal Proceedings is codified in Maryland as Md. Code (1974, 2020 Repl. Vol.), § 9-\n302(a) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”). To obtain the testimon","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9928778],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4330270/in-re-certification-of-need-for-additional-judges/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Certification of Need for Additional Judges","caseNameFull":"In Re: Certification of Need for Additional Judges","citation":["206 So. 3d 22","41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 605","2016 Fla. LEXIS 2681"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":4330270,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-12-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC16-2127","docket_id":4553212,"judge":"Labarga, Pariente, Lewis, Quince, Canady, Polston, Perry","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:14:24.768845Z","date_created":"2016-12-15T16:04:04.278498Z","score":{"bm25":27.53817}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1875038],"download_url":"http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2016/sc16-2127.pdf","id":4107531,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2016/12/15/in_re_certification_of_need_for_additional_judges.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:03:28.558808Z","date_created":"2016-12-15T16:04:04.284331Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"64e712bd08c6dded4a8accae1649aa0ed5222592","snippet":"\n\n\n  PER CURIAM.\n \n\n  This opinion fulfills our constitutional obligation to determine the State’s need for additional judges in fiscal year 2017/2018 and to certify our “findings and recommendations concerning such need” to the Legislature.\n  \n   1\n  \n  Certification is “the sole mechanism established by our constitution for a systematic and uniform ass","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4107531],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}