{"count":854568,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0zMC41ODY5MTgmcz01OTE0MjkzJnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMTAtMDQmcD0y&q=REJECTION+OF+APPLICATIONS&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8288871/in-re-applications-of-enbridge-energy-ltd/","attorney":"FLOREY, Judge *17In these consolidated certiorari appeals, relators environmental organizations and tribal bands, challenge a decision by respondent Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (commission) determining adequate a final EIS (FEIS) for the proposed Line 3 pipeline project of respondent Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge). Although we reject most of relators' assertions of error, we agree that the FEIS is inadequate because it does not address the potential impact of an oil spill into the Lake Superior watershed. Accordingly, we reverse the commission's adequacy determination and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision., In April 2015, Enbridge filed applications for a certificate of need (CN) and routing permit (RP) to allow the installation of 337 miles of 36-inch diameter pipe, and associated facilities, from the North Dakota-Minnesota border to the Minnesota-Wisconsin border. The proposed pipeline would replace the existing Line 3, which is part of Enbridge's Mainline System., Existing Line 3 crosses into northwestern Minnesota from North Dakota, connects to a terminal at Clearbrook (the Clearbrook terminal), and continues east across northern Minnesota, through Carlton, and into Wisconsin, where it connects with a terminal in Superior, Wisconsin (the *18Superior terminal). Existing Line 3 crosses through the Leech Lake and Fond du Lac Reservations pursuant to leases that will expire in 2029. In its CN and RP applications, Enbridge proposed a route for the replacement Line 3 that would follow the existing Line 3 corridor from North Dakota to Clearbrook and Carlton to Superior, but would take a more southerly route between Clearbrook and Carlton, which would avoid crossing the reservations. Figure 2.1-1 from the EIS, reproduced in color below, illustrates the location of the existing mainline corridor (which houses Line 3 and other pipelines) and Enbridge's proposed new route (Applicant's Preferred Route, or APR).1, After initially setting the CN and RP applications for separate contested-case proceedings and initiating environmental review in the RP docket, the commission combined the CN and RP dockets and ordered that a joint EIS be prepared. The commission, as the RGU, authorized the Minnesota Department of Commerce's Energy Environmental Review and Analysis division (DOC-EERA) to prepare the EIS, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) were brought in as assisting agencies., *19After receiving the FEIS, the commission issued an order extending the statutory deadline for determining the adequacy of the FEIS and referring the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for development of the record and a recommendation on the adequacy of the FEIS. On November 1, 2017, an administrative-law judge (ALJ) issued proposed findings and conclusions and a recommendation that the commission determine the FEIS adequate., Relators Friends of the Headwaters (FOH), Honor the Earth (HTE), and Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, and White Earth Band of Ojibwe (the Bands), filed three certiorari appeals, which this court consolidated for consideration.3, Environmental review in Minnesota is governed by the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), Minn. Stat. §§ 116D.01 -.11 (2018). MEPA is patterned on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 - 4370m-12 (2012 & Supp. 2017), and Minnesota courts have in appropriate circumstances relied on federal caselaw applying NEPA. See No Power Line, Inc. v. Minn. Envtl. Quality Council , 262 N.W.2d 312, 323 n.28 (Minn. 1977) (noting that court had used federal caselaw to interpret MEPA); In re N.D. Pipeline Co. LLC , 869 N.W.2d 693, 698 (Minn. App. 2015) (noting that court may look to federal courts' application of NEPA for guidance), review denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 2015); see also Citizens Advocating Responsible Dev. v. Kandiyohi Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs , 713 N.W.2d 817, 826 (Minn. 2006) ( CARD ) (declining to apply language in NEPA regulations that is not present in MEPA regulations). As directed by MEPA, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has promulgated administrative rules governing environmental review under the act. See Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 5a (directing promulgation *20of rules); Minn. R. 4410.0200 - .9910 (2017) (EQB rules)., Preparation of an EIS is mandatory under MEPA in relation to both CN and RP proceedings, and the commission is the RGU tasked with completing the EIS. See Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 2a(a) (requiring EIS when \"there is potential for significant environmental effects resulting from any major governmental action\"); Minn. R. 4410.4400, subp. 24 (designating commission as RGU for \"routing of a pipeline subject to the full route selection procedures under [ Minn. Stat. §] 216G.02\"); see also In re N.D. Pipeline Co. , 869 N.W.2d at 698 (interpreting MEPA to require commission to complete EIS before issuing CN)., \"The purpose of an EIS is to provide information for governmental units, the proposer of the project, and other persons to evaluate proposed projects which have the potential for significant environmental effects, to consider alternatives to the proposed projects, and to explore methods for reducing adverse environmental effects.\" Minn. R. 4410.2000, subp. 1. \"The agency's role in the preparation of an EIS is not to serve as an arbiter between two opposing parties, as a judge is expected to do in the adversary process.\" No Power Line , 262 N.W.2d at 327. \"Instead, it is expected to be a source of independent expertise whose scientific investigation can uncover the data necessary to make an informed environmental decision.\" Id., As an investigative tool, the EIS does not authorize or preclude an action and does not take the place of permit or other proceedings governing a particular project. See, e.g. , Iron Rangers for Responsible Ridge Action v. Iron Range Res. , 531 N.W.2d 874, 880 (Minn. App. 1995) (\"MEPA's purpose is to force agencies to make their own impartial evaluation of environmental considerations before reaching their decisions.\" (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. July 28, 1995). When an EIS is required, however, no permits may be issued until an EIS has been determined adequate. Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 2b(3). And, \"[t]o ensure its use in the decision-making process, the [EIS] shall be prepared as early as practical in the formulation of an action.\" Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 2a., The EIS process begins with \"scoping\" to determine the appropriate limits of the EIS in terms of \"form, content, and level of detail\" and to determine \"the alternatives [to the project] that are appropriate for consideration in the [EIS].\" Id. , subd. 2a(h) ; see also Minn. R. 4410.2100 (governing scoping process). For projects for which an EIS is mandatory, an environmental-assessment worksheet is used as a scoping document. Minn. R. 4410.2100, subp. 2. And the RGU must prepare a draft scoping-decision document that is released for public comment and hold at least one scoping meeting before a final scoping-decision document is completed. See Minn. R. 4410.2100, subps. 2-3., Following scoping, an RGU must complete and make available for public comment a DEIS and hold an informational meeting in the county where the project is *21proposed. Minn. R. 4410.2600, subp. 2. The RGU must then respond to timely substantive comments received on the DEIS and prepare the FEIS. Id. , subp. 10., Minn. R. 4410.2800, subp. 4. \"An [EIS] shall be prepared and its adequacy determined within 280 days after notice of its preparation unless the time is extended by consent of the parties or by the governor for good cause.\" Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 2a(j). If the RGU determines the FEIS inadequate, the RGU has 60 days to prepare an adequate EIS. Minn. R. 4410.2800, subp. 5., An RGU's decision on the adequacy of an EIS is appealable to this court by petition for a writ of certiorari. Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 10. This court reviews the decision under the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA), Minn. Stat. §§ 14.001 -.69 (2018) to determine whether","caseName":"In re Applications of Enbridge Energy, Ltd.","caseNameFull":"IN RE Applications of ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, for a Certificate of Need and a Routing Permit for the Proposed Line 3 Replacement Project in Minnesota from the North Dakota Border to the Wisconsin Border.","citation":["930 N.W.2d 12"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":8288871,"court":"Court of Appeals of Minnesota","court_citation_string":"Minn. Ct. App.","court_id":"minnctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-06-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A18-1283; A18-1291; A18-1292","docket_id":65467020,"judge":"Connolly","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T18:11:10.485324Z","date_created":"2022-10-16T11:43:23.418022Z","score":{"bm25":88.131836}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8254986,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T01:51:05.467848Z","date_created":"2022-10-16T11:43:23.436313Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nCONNOLLY, Judge (dissenting)\nI respectfully dissent. I do not believe that the decision of respondent Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (commission) was arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence. Relator Honor the Earth (HTE) contends that the final environmental-impact statement (FEIS) failed to consider the effect of oil spills on the Lake Superior watershed. HTE is wrong. It did.\nWe ","type":"dissent"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8254985,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T15:50:45.998833Z","date_created":"2022-10-16T11:43:23.430134Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nthe substantial rights of the [relators] may have been prejudiced because the administrative finding, inferences, conclusion, or decisions are:\n(a) in violation of constitutional provisions; or\n(b) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or\n(c) made upon unlawful procedure; or\n(d) af","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8254985,8254986],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4957936/lindsey-v-bio-medical-applications/","attorney":"","caseName":"Lindsey v. Bio-Medical Applications","caseNameFull":"","citation":["9 F.4th 317"],"citeCount":11,"cluster_id":4957936,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","court_citation_string":"5th Cir.","court_id":"ca5","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-08-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20-30289","docket_id":60185801,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:55:32.123395Z","date_created":"2021-08-16T22:03:50.262699Z","score":{"bm25":41.592163}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[8408,37612,110424,792923,931121,1042298,4150491,4261243,4269610,4464648,4508052,4561577,4685013,8412183,8415341,9435317],"download_url":"http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-30289-CV0.pdf","id":4766130,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/08/16/lindsey_v._bio-medical_applications.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-27T11:50:37.984338Z","date_created":"2021-08-16T22:03:50.265139Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2e599168e1b09ff5a15dbf8a056bc4ba94e7dd11","snippet":"Case: 20-30289        Document: 00515979904           Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/16/2021\n\n\n\n\n             United States Court of Appeals\n                  for the Fifth Circuit                              United States Court of Appeals\n                                                                              Fifth Circuit\n\n                                                                            FILED\n                                                                      August 16, 2021\n   ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4766130],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Private Civil Federal","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10352252/science-applications-international-corp-v-united-states/","attorney":"","caseName":"Science Applications International Corp. v. United States","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10352252,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-03-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"17-825","docket_id":59731729,"judge":"Eleni M. Roumel","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-03-07T21:02:01.990486Z","date_created":"2025-03-07T21:02:01.895204Z","score":{"bm25":39.676266}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[77034,107160,118435,179295,186999,209277,209411,212198,427228,460292,475357,560597,577200,616117,741777,764761,779646,785200,786808,796208,2660430,3178613,4204766,4504697,4663743,4910766,6105409,6334966,6651781,6654536,6660018,6662668,6824693,6825770,6943312,6954239,7238229,8917512,9302127,9384591,9414435,9415923,9431075,9432890,9436698,9476107,9489724,9501130],"download_url":"https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2017cv0825-504-0","id":10818840,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/03/07/science_applications_international_corp._v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-07T12:37:24.737410Z","date_created":"2025-03-07T21:02:01.911169Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3d561cfecda00b6e0496c02a1ca81c69f8dd22bb","snippet":"        In the United States Court of Federal Claims\n    SCIENCE APPLICATIONS\n    INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,\n\n                   Plaintiff,\n\n                       v.\n                                                       No. 17-cv-825\n    THE UNITED STATES,\n\n                   Defendant,                          Filed Under Seal: February 28,\n                                                       2025 1\n                       and\n                                                       Publicatio","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10818840],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"REPORTED OPINION (reissued for publication of [502] SEALED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 466 Plaintiff&039;s Motions in Limine and denying 465 Defendants&039; Motions in Limine"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3174402/inform-applications-inc-v-town-of-brookhaven/","attorney":"","caseName":"INFORM Applications, Inc. v. Town of Brookhaven","caseNameFull":"INFORM Applications, Inc., Respondent, v. Town of Brookhaven, Appellant","citation":["136 A.D.3d 670","24 N.Y.S.3d 212"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":3174402,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-02-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2015-04497","docket_id":3033240,"judge":"Mastro, Austin, Maltese, Barros","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T18:17:08.858740Z","date_created":"2016-02-05T09:03:35.128230Z","score":{"bm25":39.279625}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2800528,5801306,6060811,6065553],"download_url":"http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_00684.htm","id":3174402,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2016/02/03/inform_applications_inc._v._town_of_brookhaven.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T03:50:16.099793Z","date_created":"2016-02-05T09:03:35.146850Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"87e8d53d8260296cd43347fa125edb57f88c1c52","snippet":"\n\n\n  In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and on an account stated, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Martin, J.), entered May 14, 2015, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to file a timely notice of claim pursuant to Town Law § 65 (3) and, thereupon, deemed the notice of claim timely filed nunc pro tunc pu","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3174402],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4500181/cubic-defense-applications-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Cubic Defense Applications, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4500181,"court":"Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals","court_citation_string":"A.S.B.C.A.","court_id":"asbca","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-05-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"ASBCA No. 58519","docket_id":6844941,"judge":"Hartman","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:02:13.391693Z","date_created":"2018-05-22T19:00:06.910452Z","score":{"bm25":38.52171}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[96669,107406,109455,111722,228643,273419,326108,413212,433505,483919,562739,700525,766560,769017,776390,780286,788433,1425488,1602485],"download_url":"http://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2018/58519%20Cubic%20Defense%20Applications,%20Inc.%205.8.18.pdf","id":4277434,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/05/08/cubic_defense_applications_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:00:47.762306Z","date_created":"2018-05-22T19:00:06.917535Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ed55d379cfbcbf84ad27dfd46cb579b296af652a","snippet":"              ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS\n\nAppeal of--                                   )\n                                              )\nCubic Defense Applications, Inc.              )      ASBCA No. 58519\n                                              )\nUnder Contract No. N00039-03-C-0024           )\n\nAPPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:                       Paul F. Khoury, Esq.\n                                                     Tracye Winfrey Howard, Esq.\n                           ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4277434],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7854546/science-applications-international-corp-v-united-states/","attorney":"","caseName":"Science Applications International Corp. v. United States","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7854546,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-08-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"17-825","docket_id":64873565,"judge":"Eleni M. Roumel","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T16:01:23.637882Z","date_created":"2022-08-05T21:01:36.909332Z","score":{"bm25":36.84094}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[104523,145767,212170,422184,453327,785298,6653846,6661221,6661778],"download_url":"https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2017cv0825-299-0","id":7798412,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/08/05/science_applications_international_corp._v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T13:39:34.706951Z","date_created":"2022-08-05T21:01:36.919482Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a7aca59c48e4a39688900ab89213568854f64368","snippet":"        In the United States Court of Federal Claims\n\n    SCIENCE APPLICATIONS\n    INTERNATIONAL CORP.,\n\n                     Plaintiff,\n\n                         v.\n\n    THE UNITED STATES,\n                                                             No. 17-cv-825\n                     Defendant,\n                                                             Filed Under Seal: July 28, 2022\n                         and\n                                                             Publication: August ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7798412],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"REPORTED OPINION (reissued for publication of SEALED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying [253] Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.) Signed by Judge Eleni M. Roumel. (rt16) Service on parties made."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9355650/modern-font-applications-llc-v-alaska-airlines/","attorney":"","caseName":"Modern Font Applications LLC v. Alaska Airlines","caseNameFull":"","citation":["56 F.4th 981"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":9355650,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cir.","court_id":"cafc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-12-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-1838","docket_id":66688098,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:51:40.440740Z","date_created":"2022-12-29T16:00:32.850270Z","score":{"bm25":36.823635}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[548,1753,77462,117906,118505,131156,145677,145689,147352,209774,272954,541825,565308,777722,1038339,1087952,4194816,4667259,6104214,8753496,8897694,8919734,9046924,9413211,9420349,9428125,9429615,9430094,9430106,9435044,9471993,9515761,9795100,9888594],"download_url":"https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1838.OPINION.12-29-2022_2055096.pdf","id":9351122,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/12/29/modern_font_applications_llc_v._alaska_airlines.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T09:20:16.008935Z","date_created":"2022-12-29T16:00:32.853595Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8c5adbb9c104807f79b814c9aeef0957aab61ba9","snippet":"Case: 21-1838    Document: 53    Page: 1   Filed: 12/29/2022\n\n\n\n\n   United States Court of Appeals\n       for the Federal Circuit\n                  ______________________\n\n        MODERN FONT APPLICATIONS LLC,\n               Plaintiff-Appellant\n\n                            v.\n\n                ALASKA AIRLINES, INC.,\n                    Defendant-Appellee\n                  ______________________\n\n                        2021-1838\n                  ______________________\n\n     Appeal from the Unite","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9351122],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9328359/science-applications-international-corp-v-united-states/","attorney":"","caseName":"Science Applications International Corp. v. United States","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9328359,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-12-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"17-825","docket_id":66618583,"judge":"Eleni M. Roumel","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T00:48:26.071864Z","date_created":"2022-12-07T21:01:11.035344Z","score":{"bm25":36.782757}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[107160,145737,174834,182125,211582,211992,298165,469191,537087,715003,780731,781451,1480989,2396964,2805134,3202871,4015231,4387386,4878931,6654846,6655804,6656465,6660714,7218345,8597165,9021127,9030258,9476107,9478193],"download_url":"https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2017cv0825-329-0","id":9323671,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/12/07/science_applications_international_corp._v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T22:32:03.634811Z","date_created":"2022-12-07T21:01:11.051805Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ff0fb6be54b74ef90d1fde685a286328770a7036","snippet":"          In the United States Court of Federal Claims\n\n    SCIENCE APPLICATIONS\n    INTERNATIONAL CORP.,\n\n                   Plaintiff,\n\n                       v.\n\n    THE UNITED STATES,\n                                                         No. 17-cv-825\n                   Defendant,\n                                                         Filed Under Seal: November 29, 2022\n                       and\n                                                         Publication: December 7, 2022 1\n  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9323671],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"REPORTED OPINION (reissued for publication of SEALED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING [289] Plaintiff's Combined Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to RCFC 37 and Partial Motion to Strike Invalidity Contentions and DENYING [308] Defendants' Rule 37 Cross-Motion to Exclude SAIC's Undisclosed Damages Theory). Signed by Judge Eleni M. Roumel. (lb) Service on parties made."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4906204/science-applications-international-corp-v-united-states/","attorney":"","caseName":"Science Applications International Corp. v. United States","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4906204,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-08-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"17-825","docket_id":60117738,"judge":"Eleni M. Roumel","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:55:27.895686Z","date_created":"2021-08-09T13:01:57.390200Z","score":{"bm25":36.770046}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[754,98822,103730,118019,208013,209870,210853,211691,722611,785298,807368,2446357,2679203,2723994,2731747,2801691,2831937,2961195,3173496,3174094,4104822,4113388,4167769,4222015,4243359,4433583,4452779,8407989,8408119,8409145,9417088,9436753,9440979,9441196,9441719,9485244,9487989,9488488,9496720,9497511,9498186,9800114,9808452,9842633,9876606],"download_url":"https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2017cv0825-192-0","id":4709983,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/08/06/science_applications_international_corp._v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-27T13:01:18.277288Z","date_created":"2021-08-09T13:01:57.406355Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8cd7dea6f1e7f1ed8229a997ddd3f4ead62e689f","snippet":"       In the United States Court of Federal Claims\n\n SCIENCE APPLICATIONS\n INTERNATIONAL CORP.,\n\n                   Plaintiff,\n\n                       v.\n\n THE UNITED STATES,\n                                                       No. 17-cv-825\n                   Defendant,\n                                                       Filed: August 6, 2021\n                       and\n\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION,\n\n                   Intervenor-Defendant,\n\n                       and\n\n L3 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\n\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4709983],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OPINION. Joint Status Report due by August 23, 2021. Signed by Judge Eleni M. Roumel. (ls) Service on parties made."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8730888/pedersen-v-bio-medical-applications/","attorney":"Kaarin S. Nelson, V. Joshua Socks, Clayton D. Halunen, Halunen & Associates, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff., Marko J. Mrkonich, Rhiannon C. Beckendorf, Sarah J. Gorajski, Littler Mendel-son, P.C., Minneapolis, MN for Defendant.","caseName":"Pedersen v. Bio-Medical Applications","caseNameFull":"Lisa PEDERSEN v. BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF MINNESOTA d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care","citation":["992 F. Supp. 2d 934","2014 WL 107151","2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3098"],"citeCount":10,"cluster_id":8730888,"court":"District Court, D. Minnesota","court_citation_string":"D. Minnesota","court_id":"mnd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-01-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civ. No. 12-2649 (RHK/JSM)","docket_id":65996812,"judge":"Kyle","lexisCite":"2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3098","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:13:08.115965Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T07:32:26.428842Z","score":{"bm25":34.39503}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8714090,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T18:30:16.881358Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T07:32:26.437274Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER\nRICHARD H. KYLE, District Judge.\nINTRODUCTION\nPlaintiff Lisa Pedersen alleges in this action that her former employer, Defendant Bio-Medical Applications of Minnesota d/b/a-Fresenius Medical Care (“BMA”), a dialysis company, terminated her employment after she reported that certain blood samples had been improperly handled. She asserts a single claim under ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8714090],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2763224/bio-medical-applications-of-aquadilla-inc-v-united-states/","attorney":"David T. Ralston, Jr., Washington, DC, for plaintiffs. Lisa A. Estrada, Jay N. Varón, Frank S. Murray, Jennifer M. Forde, Washington, DC, of counsel., John S. Groat, United States Department of Justice, with whom were Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, Steven J. Gilling-ham, Assistant Director, Phyllis Jo Baunaeh, Senior Trial Counsel, Joshua D. Sehnell, Trial Attorney, Washington, DC, for defendant. Dennis Foley and Drew Comacchio, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, of counsel.","caseName":"Bio-Medical Applications of Aquadilla, Inc. v. United States","caseNameFull":"BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF AQUADILLA, INC., Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. the UNITED STATES, Defendant","citation":["119 Fed. Cl. 546","2014 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1419","2014 WL 7240348"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":2763224,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-12-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"14-187C","docket_id":2617474,"judge":"Lynn J. Bush","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T14:32:28.518651Z","date_created":"2014-12-19T21:17:12.870575Z","score":{"bm25":34.287746}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[776,102394,102656,109009,109386,110062,110763,110997,111742,118062,145730,145875,209668,210674,274781,287163,362812,422181,445141,505946,561400,577271,587018,653737,702405,754130,759595,776738,778280,780583,785930,795063,1316725,2355001],"download_url":"https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2014cv0187-27-0","id":2763224,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2014/12/19/bio-medical_applications_of_aquadilla_inc._v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T22:57:54.456639Z","date_created":"2014-12-19T21:01:37.548127Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e0c3a412f73109344dbf1e837c0366fab11c403a","snippet":"\n\n\n  Underpayment Claim; Money-Mandating Regulation; 38 C.F.R. § 17.56 (2008); RCFC 12(b)(1); RCFC 12(b)(6).\n \n\n  OPINION\n \n\n  BUSH, Senior Judge.\n \n\n  The court has before it defendant’s motion to dismiss this suit, which was brought pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). Defendant’s m","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2763224],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7306466/wigent-v-science-applications-international-corp/","attorney":"Roman F. Amaguin, Law Office of Roman Amaguin, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff., Christian P. Gray, Louise K.Y. Ing, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants.","caseName":"Wigent v. Science Applications International Corp.","caseNameFull":"Shannon WIGENT v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. John Does 1-10 Jane Does 1-10 and Doe Entities 1-10","citation":["19 F. Supp. 3d 1012","2014 WL 1875148","2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63924","122 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1459"],"citeCount":9,"cluster_id":7306466,"court":"District Court, D. Hawaii","court_citation_string":"D. Haw.","court_id":"hid","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-05-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. CIV. 13-00123 ACK-KSC","docket_id":64294943,"judge":"Kay","lexisCite":"2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63924","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:32:51.016914Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:05:27.856276Z","score":{"bm25":34.14709}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7224369,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T21:03:11.217179Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:05:27.870790Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n\nORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT\n\nALAN C. KAY, Senior District Judge.\n\nPROCEDURAL BACKGROUND\n\nOn February 7, 2013, Plaintiff Shannon Wigent (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Science Applications International Corporation, now known as Leídos Holdings, Inc. (“Leídos” or “Defendant”), in the Circuit Court of t","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7224369],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8440027/applications-in-internet-time-llc-v-rpx-corp/","attorney":"Steven C. Sereboff, SoCal IP Law Group LLP, Westlake Village, CA, argued for appellant., Michael N. Rader, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, PC, New York, NY, argued for appellee. Also represented by Bryan S. Conley, Richard Giunta, Elisabeth Hunt, Boston, MA.","caseName":"Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp.","caseNameFull":"APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET TIME, LLC v. RPX CORPORATION","citation":["897 F.3d 1336"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":8440027,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cir.","court_id":"cafc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-07-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2017-1698; 2017-1699; 2017-1701","docket_id":65658368,"judge":"Hughes, Malley, Reyna","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T19:12:59.006432Z","date_created":"2022-11-02T18:22:03.479664Z","score":{"bm25":33.118214}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8410851,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T02:26:08.390266Z","date_created":"2022-11-02T18:22:03.493678Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nConcurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge Reyna.\nO'Malley, Circuit Judge.\nThis appeal arises from three inter partes reviews (\"IPRs\") challenging claims of two patents owned by Appellant Applications in Internet Time, LLC (\"AIT\"): U.S. Patent Nos. 7,356,482 (\"the '482 patent\") and 8,484,111 (\"the '111 patent\"). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (\"Board\") of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (\"PTO\") inst","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8410851,8410852],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4490846/wood-nov-permit-applications/","attorney":"","caseName":"Wood NOV & Permit Applications","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4490846,"court":"Vermont Superior Court","court_citation_string":"Vt. Super. Ct. ","court_id":"vtsuperct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-02-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"138-8-10 Vtec","docket_id":6372440,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:59:40.610580Z","date_created":"2018-04-24T00:08:16.037331Z","score":{"bm25":31.875679}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/sites/default/files/documents/Wood%20NOV%20and%20Permit%20Apps%2C%20Nos%20138-8-10%20and%201-1-11%20Vtec%20Merits.pdf","id":4268099,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2012/02/22/wood_nov__permit_applications.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:54:12.981377Z","date_created":"2018-04-24T00:08:16.045066Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3421822bb16f9f0088ab6da033834efc8cacc5e9","snippet":"                                     STATE OF VERMONT\n                    SUPERIOR COURT—ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION\n                                                  }\nTown of Hartford v. Marc & Susan Wood             }    Docket No. 1-1-11 Vtec\n                                                  }   (Municipal enforcement proceeding)\n                                                  }\n++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\n                                              ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4268099],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4407778/the-informatics-applications-group-inc-v-united-states/","attorney":"John Edwai’d McCarthy, Jr., Counsel of Record, Monica Sterling, Associate, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, for plaintiff., Jimmy S. McBirney, Trial Attorney, Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Litigation Branch, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, David R. Smith, Of Counsel, Associate General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Defense Health Agency, for defendant.","caseName":"The Informatics Applications Group, Inc. v. United States","caseNameFull":"The INFORMATICS APPLICATIONS GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. the UNITED STATES, Defendant","citation":["132 Fed. Cl. 519","2017 WL 2952288"],"citeCount":23,"cluster_id":4407778,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-07-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"17-553C","docket_id":6087780,"judge":"Lydia Kay Griggsby","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:36:45.454323Z","date_created":"2017-07-11T12:03:51.436150Z","score":{"bm25":31.66746}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[108283,108752,109606,110991,111842,207728,208728,208807,209344,210550,520062,628697,769216,771944,772066,780584,785084,785931,788431],"download_url":"https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2017cv0553-26-0","id":4185031,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/07/10/the_informatics_applications_group_inc._v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:56:35.172401Z","date_created":"2017-07-11T12:03:51.451098Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3901e40efed655bf426447c33fdc625deabb822b","snippet":"\n\n\n  Pre-Award Bid Protest; Judgment Upon the Administrative Record, RCFC 52.1; Supplementing the Administrative Record; Permanent Injunction.\n \n\n  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER\n \n\n  GRIGGSBY, Judge\n \n\n  I. INTRODUCTION\n \n\n  Plaintiff, The Informatics Applications Group, Inc. (“tiag”), brought this pre-award bid protest matter cha","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4185031],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"REPORTED OPINION. Signed by Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10318186/in-re-estate-of-davis/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Estate of Davis","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 148"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10318186,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-01-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"24AP-277","docket_id":69386818,"judge":"Beatty Blunt","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-21T19:14:58.870786Z","date_created":"2025-01-21T19:14:58.806722Z","score":{"bm25":31.61521}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 148","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[3695600],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2025/2025-Ohio-148.pdf","id":10784774,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/01/21/in_re_estate_of_davis.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T19:02:05.035225Z","date_created":"2025-01-21T19:14:58.822591Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ba18a0dfa54ef9cc94385cf34ba51bec1f442738","snippet":"[Cite as In re Estate of Davis, 2025-Ohio-148.]\n\n\n                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\nIn the matter of the Estate of                    :\nPatricia A. Davis,\n                                                  :\n[Michelle Simpson,                                                   No. 24AP-227\n                                                  :                 (Prob. No. 603738)\n                 Appellant].\n     ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10784774],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"On appeal by successor executor of probate court judgment declining to approve an application for certificate of transfer of real property and order to initiate land sale proceeding. Testamentary trust was not self-executing and could not come into being until acceptance of the trust property by the trustee after the death of the settlor. Probate court correctly concluded that decedent's residence was an asset of the estate, not an asset of the testamentary trust and could therefore be used to satisfy debts of the estate; the court therefore did not abuse its discretion by declining to approve certificate of transfer, rejecting representation of estate insolvency, or ordering successor executor to initiate a land sale proceeding. Assignments of error overruled, and judgment affirmed."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10595607/lu-v-univ-of-dayton/","attorney":"","caseName":"Lu v. Univ. of Dayton","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 1948"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":10595607,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-05-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"30272; 30375","docket_id":70411193,"judge":"Hanseman","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-05-30T15:12:11.327259Z","date_created":"2025-05-30T15:12:11.265346Z","score":{"bm25":31.425009}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 1948","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[108786,110424,795097,2689881,2693810,2699564,2706035,3699558,3736580,3754953,4151774,4229276,4647550,6755853,6756083,6759022,6760165,6762353,6768552,6770246,6772258,6776700,6958456,7797152,8962772,9349543,9430599,9430607,9480350,9928385,9961658,10507913,10521443],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/2/2025/2025-Ohio-1948.pdf","id":11062195,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/05/30/lu_v._univ._of_dayton.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T04:06:39.859440Z","date_created":"2025-05-30T15:12:11.278084Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8d25adb7015396a2088f1c625dd4be213d3d15ab","snippet":"[Cite as Lu v. Univ. of Dayton, 2025-Ohio-1948.]\n\n\n\n\n                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n                                  SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                                     MONTGOMERY COUNTY\n\n WEIJIE LU                                              :\n                                                        :\n       Appellant                                        :   C.A. Nos. 30272; 30375\n                                                        :\n v.        ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11062195],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee. Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under R.C. 4112.02(I). Even if he had, appellee presented legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for rejecting appellant's employment application, and there was no evidence that appellee's reasons were a pretext for unlawful discrimination. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for relief from judgment, as he did not establish any of the requirements for relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(2) or (3). Judgments affirmed."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2371807/pandey-v-bio-medical-applications-of-minnesota-inc/","attorney":"Dorene R. Sarnoski, Dorene R. Sarnoski Law Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Shashi Pandey., Bryan N. Smith, Marko J. Mrkonich, Littler Mendelson, PC, Minneapolis, MN, for Bio-Medical Applications, Fresenius Medical Care North America, Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA.","caseName":"Pandey v. Bio-Medical Applications of Minnesota, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Shashi PANDEY v. BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF MINNESOTA, INC.; AKA BMA; Also Dba Fresenius Medical Care North America AKA FMCNA, Fresenius Medical Care, and National Medical Care, Inc., or NMC; And Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA; All Foreign Corporations Doing Business in Minnesota","citation":["651 F. Supp. 2d 969","2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69698","2009 WL 2461732"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":2371807,"court":"District Court, D. Minnesota","court_citation_string":"D. Minnesota","court_id":"mnd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2009-08-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"07-CV-4266 JMR/FLN","docket_id":2272940,"judge":"James M. Rosenbaum","lexisCite":"2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69698","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T11:07:51.452308Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T23:03:51.351618Z","score":{"bm25":31.276068}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":2775,"cites":[108786,111719,111722,111882,112901,161081,511665,692354,720594,722468,741808,745423,757511,760409,765810,768995,769449,772864,776353,777280,780706,783084,797322,1087667],"download_url":null,"id":2371807,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T19:09:49.278217Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:16:36.972868Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d316667c07c023f85d52e89381258d8138d2a93e","snippet":"\n651 F.Supp.2d 969 (2009)\nShashi PANDEY\nv.\nBIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF MINNESOTA, INC.; aka BMA; also dba Fresenius Medical Care North America aka FMCNA, Fresenius Medical Care, and National Medical Care, Inc., or NMC; and Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA; all foreign corporations doing business in Minnesota.\nNo. 07-CV-4266 JMR/FLN.\nUnited States District Court, D. Minnesota.\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2371807],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2498637/dellinger-v-science-applications-international-corp/","attorney":"ARGUED: Zachary Alan Kitts, Cook, Kitts & Francuzenko, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Dean Romhilt, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for Amici Supporting Appellant. Robert Sparks, Jr., Sparks & Craig, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: John J. Rigby, Mclnroy & Rigby, LLP, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert L. Levin, Science Applications International Corporation, San Diego, California, for Appellee. P. David Lopez, General Counsel, Vincent J. Blackwood, Acting Associate General Counsel, Paul D. Ramshaw, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C.; M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor, William C. Lesser, Acting Associate Solicitor, Paul L. Frieden, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Melissa Murphy, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for Amici Supporting Appellant.","caseName":"Dellinger v. Science Applications International Corp.","caseNameFull":"Natalie R. DELLINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Secretary of Labor; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amici Supporting Appellant","citation":["649 F.3d 226","17 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1833","2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16635","2011 WL 3528750"],"citeCount":21,"cluster_id":2498637,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit","court_citation_string":"4th Cir.","court_id":"ca4","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-08-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"10-1499","docket_id":2365478,"judge":"Niemeyer, King, Keenan","lexisCite":"2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16635","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T12:20:22.384102Z","date_created":"2015-10-14T01:15:00.511438Z","score":{"bm25":31.276047}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9780653,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T07:45:52.327754Z","date_created":"2023-08-30T02:19:15.268745Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nKING, Circuit Judge,\ndissenting:\nIt has been just short of fifteen years since Justice Thomas delivered the opinion on behalf of a unanimous Supreme Court in Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 117 S.Ct. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997), a decision that has since stood as the definitive authority on statutory construction. Then, as now, a plaintiff having no active employment relationship with the defe","type":"dissent"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[105984,112072,118082,142881,145636,145805,145806,145915,179240,342307,416580,525223,770619,777094,794013,1024883,2408048],"download_url":null,"id":2498637,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T20:13:24.890083Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:57:07.831880Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"05a9688f4f950da1dd3e15330bf449fb587558a8","snippet":"\n649 F.3d 226 (2011)\nNatalie R. DELLINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant,\nv.\nSCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.\nSecretary of Labor; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amici Supporting Appellant.\nNo. 10-1499.\nUnited States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.\nArgued: May 10, 2011.\nDecided: August 12, 2011.\nARGUED: Zachary","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[1725,1780,2412],"panel_names":["Barbara Milano Keenan","Robert Bruce King","Paul Victor Niemeyer"],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2498637,9780652,9780653],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5914293/science-applications-international-corp-v-state/","attorney":"","caseName":"Science Applications International Corp. v. State","caseNameFull":"Science Applications International Corporation v. State of New York","citation":["60 A.D.3d 1257","876 N.Y.S.2d 182"],"citeCount":9,"cluster_id":5914293,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2009-03-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Claim No. 114716","docket_id":62272458,"judge":"Lahtinen","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T07:18:56.270600Z","date_created":"2022-01-12T17:33:41.225237Z","score":{"bm25":30.586918}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1991288,2075760,2559192,2592620,5669842,5677031,9723350],"download_url":null,"id":5771919,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T03:27:36.689117Z","date_created":"2022-01-12T17:33:41.240556Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nLahtinen, J.\nAppeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Collins, J.), entered June 20, 2008, which, among other things, denied claimant’s motion for summary judgment.\nThis is a dispute over the interpretation of the pricing terms provided in a contract for image capture and document repository services. Simply stated, claimant contends that it is entitled to compensation for each image scanned (thus a page","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5771919],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}