maryland south v

• American Empire Insurance Company of South Dakota Et Al., Appellants, v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Appellee., 408 F.2d 72 (5th Cir. 1969)

W, Warren Cole, Jr., Black, Cobb, Cole, Crotty & Sigerson, Daytona Beach, Fla., for appellants. Harry T. Gray, Francis P. Conroy, George Stelljes, J...

• Federal Circuits

• Letter to the Editor: Individual, Not Cops, Responsible for Safety

The senseless tragedy in Cheshire comes as a stark reminder that people are responsible for their own safety. The law enforcement community, as good as it is, cannot be everywhere. Starting with South V. Maryland in 1856 and continuing through Castle Rock v. Gonzales in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the government is not responsible for the safety of the individual. The police are there to enforce the law. If they happen to save someone from the actions of criminals, that is icing on the cake.

• New Haven Register
• April 16, 2009

• in Re: the Department of Energy Stripper Well Litigation. the States of Alabama, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. United States Department of Energy and Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Defendants-Appellees. the States of Alabama, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. United States Department of Energy, Hazel O'Leary, Secretary; Office of Hearings and Appeals, Department of Energy, George B. Breznay, Director, Defendants - Appellees, and Chevron, Usa, Inc., Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee. Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Rhode Island and West Virginia, the Territory of Guam and the Virgin Islands, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. United States Department of Energy, and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Defendants-Appellees., 206 F.3d 1345 (10th Cir. 2000)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. D.C. Nos. 79-CV-378, 96-CV-1180-MLB, and 97-CV-378Submitted on the briefs:...

• Federal Circuits

• Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches; microbiological testing and monitoring,

... 257,766 Maryland.......................... 273,429 Massachusetts..... 212,340 South Carolina....................... 298,726 Texas.......

• FR, March 31, 2003
• Notices
• Environmental Protection Agency

• Jefferson Realty of South Dade, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Defendant-Appellee., 410 F.2d 847 (5th Cir. 1969)

Ray H. Pearson, Larry S. Stewart, Frates, Fay, Floyd & Pearson, Miami, Fla., for appellant. Joseph F. Jennings, Barry G. Seidel, Dixon, Bradford, Wil...

• Federal Circuits

• Eighth Amendment: Further Guarantees In Criminal Cases

... parole was the harshest penalty possible in South Dakota, reserved for such other offenses as murder...538, 543 (1987). . Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988); McKoy v. North Carolina, 494...

• Constitution of the United States (Annotated)

• Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. (2007)

... federal laws or officials, e.g., Maryland v. Soper , 270 U. S. 9, 32, and States hostile t... South Carolina , 107 U. S. 597, 600, but "only" if the p...

• U.S. Supreme Court

• Mm, a Minor, By and Through Her Parents, Dm and Em, and on Their Own Behalf, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. School District of Greenville County, A/K/a Greenville County Public Schools, Defendant-Appellant, and South Carolina State Board of Education, Defendant, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; Protection and Advocacy for People With Disabilities of South Carolina; Carolina Legal Assistance; North Carolina Special Needs Federation; the North Carolina Governor'S Advocacy Council for Persons With Disabilities; Pisgah Legal Services; Maryland Disability Law Center, Amici Curiae. Mm, a Minor, By and Through Her Parents, Dm and Em, and on Their Own Behalf, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. School District of Greenville County, A/K/a Greenville County Public Schools, Defendant-Appellee, and South Carolina State Board of Education, Defendant, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; Protection and Advocacy for People With Disabilities of South Carolina; Carolina Legal Assistance; North Carolina Special Needs ..., 303 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. 2002)

ARGUED: Elizabeth Jones Smith, Clarkson, Walsh, Rheney & Turner, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Paul Lawrence Erickson, The Law Firm...

• Federal Circuits

• Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986)

...Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407 (1819) (emphasis in original). ... Finally, citing South v. Maryland, 18 How. 396 (1856), petitioner argues...

• U.S. Supreme Court

• the Baltimore Sun Company; David Nitkin; Michael Olesker, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Governor of Maryland; Shareese Deleaver, in Her Official Capacity as Press Secretary To the Governor of Maryland; Gregory Massoni, in His Official Capacity as Deputy Director of Communications and Press Secretary To the Governor of Maryland, Defendants-Appellees. Leonard J. Kerpelman, Movant, and the Washington Post; the New York Times Company; Time Inc.; the Associated Press; E.W. Scripps Company; Advance Publications, Incorporated; Cable News Network, Lp, Lllp; the Maryland Delaware District of Columbia Press Association; American Society of Newspaper Editors; Newspaper Association of America; the Association of Capitol Reporters and Editors; the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; Society of Professional Journalists; the North Carolina Press Association; the South Carolina Press Association; Virginia Press Association, Amici Supporting Appellants., 437 F.3d 410 (4th Cir. 2006)

ARGUED: Charles D. Tobin, Holland & Knight, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Margaret Ann Nolan, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney G...

• Federal Circuits