62 S.Ct.

303 Page 1
314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329
(Cite as: 314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

62 S.Ct. 303 Page 2
314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329
(Cite as: 314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303)

character of the national capital. D.C.Code Supp. V,

T. 20, § 980a(a).
Supreme Court of the United States
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [2] District of Columbia 132 33(11)
v.
MURPHY. 132 District of Columbia
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA      132k33 Taxation
v.            132k33(10) Income Taxes
DE HART.                132k33(11) k. Domicile of Taxpayer. Most
Cited Cases
Nos. 58 and 59.      (Formerly 132k33)
Argued Nov. 17, 1941.
Decided Dec. 15, 1941. Exercise of political rights elsewhere cannot be
considered as meant to be conclusive on the issue of
On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court taxability in the District of Columbia under statute
of Appeals for the District of Columbia. imposing an income tax on every individual
domiciled in the District on the last day of the taxable
Petitions by the District of Columbia to review year. D.C.Code Supp. V, T. 20, § 980a(a).
decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals for the District
of Columbia involving the income tax liability of [3] District of Columbia 132 33(11)
Henry C. Murphy and of Paul M. De Hart. To review
judgments of the United States Court of Appeals for 132 District of Columbia
the District of Columbia affirming the decisions of      132k33 Taxation
the board, 73 App.D.C. 347, 119 F.2d 451, and 73            132k33(10) Income Taxes
App.D.C. 345, 119 F.2d 449, the District of                132k33(11) k. Domicile of Taxpayer. Most
Columbia brings certiorari. Cited Cases
     (Formerly 132k33)
Judgments reversed and cases remanded to the
board for further proceedings. A person does not acquire a “domicile” in the
District of Columbia, within statute imposing an
West Headnotes income tax on every individual domiciled in the
District, simply by coming to the District to live for
[1] District of Columbia 132 33(11) an indefinite period of time while in the government
service. D.C.Code Supp. V, T. 20, § 980a(a).
132 District of Columbia
     132k33 Taxation [4] District of Columbia 132 33(11)
           132k33(10) Income Taxes
               132k33(11) k. Domicile of Taxpayer. Most 132 District of Columbia
Cited Cases      132k33 Taxation
     (Formerly 132k33)            132k33(10) Income Taxes
               132k33(11) k. Domicile of Taxpayer. Most
To ascertain the meaning of the word “domicile” Cited Cases
as used in the District of Columbia statute imposing      (Formerly 132k33)
an income tax on every individual domiciled in the
District on the last day of the taxable year, the Under the District of Columbia statute imposing
Supreme Court would consider the congressional an income tax on every individual domiciled in the
history of the statute, the situation with reference to District on the last day of the taxable year, Congress
which it was enacted, the existing judicial precedents did not intend that a person living in the District
with which the Congress might be taken to have been indefinitely while in the government service should
familiar in at least a general way, and the unusual be held to have acquired a “domicile” in the District

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

62 S.Ct. 303 Page 3
314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329
(Cite as: 314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303)

simply because he does not maintain a domestic
establishment at his former place of abode. D.C.Code
Supp. V, T. 20, § 980a(a).
[5] District of Columbia 132 33(11)
132 District of Columbia
     132k33 Taxation
           132k33(10) Income Taxes
               132k33(11) k. Domicile of Taxpayer. Most
Cited Cases
     (Formerly 132k33)
Persons who live in the District of Columbia,
and have no fixed and definite intent to return and
make their homes where they were formerly
domiciled, acquire a “domicile” in the District within
statute imposing an income tax on every individual
domiciled in the District on the last day of the taxable
year, and, to keep from acquiring a domicile in the
District, the intention to return must be fixed, though
the date need not be, and must be unconditional,
though the time may be contingent. D.C.Code Supp.
V, T. 20, § 980a(a).
[6] District of Columbia 132 33(11)
Under the District of Columbia statute imposing
an income tax on every individual domiciled in the
District on the last day of the taxable year, the
question of domicile is a question of fact to be settled
only by a realistic and conscientious review of the
many relevant indicia of where a man's home is, and
according to the established modes of proof.
D.C.Code Supp. V, T. 20, § 980a(a).
[8] Domicile 135 1
135 Domicile
     135k1 k. Nature and Elements. Most Cited Cases
The place where a man lives is properly taken to
be his “domicile” until facts adduced establish the
contrary.
[9] District of Columbia 132 33(11)
132 District of Columbia
     132k33 Taxation
           132k33(10) Income Taxes
               132k33(11) k. Domicile of Taxpayer. Most
Cited Cases
     (Formerly 132k33)

132 District of Columbia Under the District of Columbia statute imposing

     132k33 Taxation an income tax on every individual domiciled in the
           132k33(10) Income Taxes District on the last day of the taxable year, the taxing
               132k33(11) k. Domicile of Taxpayer. Most authority is warranted in treating as prima facie
Cited Cases taxable any person quartered in the District on tax
     (Formerly 132k33) day whose status is deemed doubtful, and it is not an
unreasonable burden on the individual to require him
The District of Columbia statute imposing an to establish domicile elsewhere if he is to escape the
income tax on every individual domiciled in the tax. D.C.Code Supp. V, T. 20, § 980a(a).
District on the last day of the taxable year was not
intended to lay a tax only on those persons having an [10] District of Columbia 132 33(11)
affirmative intent to remain in the District for the rest
of their days. D.C.Code Supp. V, T. 20, § 980a(a).
132 District of Columbia
     132k33 Taxation
[7] District of Columbia 132 33(11)            132k33(10) Income Taxes
               132k33(11) k. Domicile of Taxpayer. Most
132 District of Columbia Cited Cases
     132k33 Taxation      (Formerly 132k33)
           132k33(10) Income Taxes
               132k33(11) k. Domicile of Taxpayer. Most To hold taxable a person who contends that he is
Cited Cases not domiciled in the District of Columbia within
     (Formerly 132k33) statute imposing an income tax on every individual
domiciled in the District on the last day of the taxable

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

62 S.Ct. 303
314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329
(Cite as: 314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303)
year, the Board of Tax Appeals of the District need
not find the exact time when the attitude and
relationship of person to place which constitutes
“domicile” were formed, so long as it finds they were
formed before the tax day, nor need the board find
just when the intent to return to the place of former
abode was finally dissipated, but it is enough for the
board to find that that has happened before the tax
day. D.C.Code Supp. V, T. 20, § 980a(a).
[11] District of Columbia 132 33(11)
132 District of Columbia
     132k33 Taxation
           132k33(10) Income Taxes
               132k33(11) k. Domicile of Taxpayer. Most
Cited Cases
     (Formerly 132k33)
A person who has at any time become domiciled
in the District of Columbia has the burden of
establishing a change of status upon which he relies
to escape the income tax imposed by statute on every
individual domiciled in the District on the last day of
the taxable year. D.C.Code Supp. V, T. 20, § 980a(a).
[12] District of Columbia 132 33(11)
132 District of Columbia
     132k33 Taxation
           132k33(10) Income Taxes
               132k33(11) k. Domicile of Taxpayer. Most
Cited Cases
     (Formerly 132k33)
Under the District of Columbia statute imposing
an income tax on every individual domiciled in the
District on the last day of the taxable year, a person
who comes to the District to enter government
service, to retain his former domicile, must always
have a fixed and definite intent to return and take up
his home there when separated from the service, and
a mere sentimental attachment will not hold the old
domicile nor is residence in the District with a nearly
equal readiness to go back where one came from or
to any other community offering advantages upon the
termination of service enough. D.C.Code Supp. V, T.
20, § 980a(a).
[13] District of Columbia 132 33(11)
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 4
132 District of Columbia
     132k33 Taxation
           132k33(10) Income Taxes
               132k33(11) k. Domicile of Taxpayer. Most
Cited Cases
     (Formerly 132k33)
On the question of the taxability of an
individual's income under the District of Columbia
statute imposing an income tax on every individual
domiciled in the District on the last day of the taxable
year, the individual's testimony with regard to his
intention to return to his former place of abode
should be given full and fair consideration, but it is
subject to the infirmity of any selfserving declaration.
D.C.Code Supp. V, T. 20 § 980a(a).
[14] District of Columbia 132 33(11)
132 District of Columbia
     132k33 Taxation
           132k33(10) Income Taxes
               132k33(11) k. Domicile of Taxpayer. Most
Cited Cases
     (Formerly 132k33)
Whether or not a person votes where he claims
domicile is highly relevant, but by no means
controlling on the question whether he is domiciled
in the District of Columbia within statute imposing a
tax on the income of every individual domiciled in
the District on the last day of the taxable year, nor is
failure to vote elsewhere conclusive that domicile is
in the District. D.C.Code Supp. V, T. 20, § 980a(a).
[15] District of Columbia 132 33(11)
132 District of Columbia
     132k33 Taxation
           132k33(10) Income Taxes
               132k33(11) k. Domicile of Taxpayer. Most
Cited Cases
     (Formerly 132k33)
In determining whether a person is domiciled in
the District of Columbia within statute imposing a tax
on the income of every individual domiciled in the
District on the last day of the taxable year, the nature
of the position which brings a person to or keeps him
62 S.Ct. 303
314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329
(Cite as: 314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303)
in the service of the government is of great
significance, the manner of living in the District,
taken in consideration with the person's station in life,
and all facts which go to show the relations retained
to the former place of abode are relevant, and the
question whether taxes similar in character to those
laid by the statute have been paid elsewhere should
also be considered. D.C.Code Supp. V, T. 20, §
980a(a).
[16] Courts 106 96(1)
106 Courts
     106II Establishment, Organization, and Procedure
           106II(G) Rules of Decision
               106k88 Previous Decisions as Controlling
or as Precedents
                     106k96 Decisions of United States
Courts as Authority in Other United States Courts
                         106k96(1) k. In General. Most Cited
Cases
Whether a Treasury Department employee who
maintained his status as a registered voter in
Michigan and voted in elections and primaries there,
and a chief clerk of the Personnel and Organization
Division of the National Guard Bureau with offices
in Washington who was born and reared in
Pennsylvania and paid poll and occupational taxes
and voted in Pennsylvania, were domiciled in the
District of Columbia within statute imposing an
income tax on every individual domiciled in the
District on the last day of the taxable year, presented
“questions of fact” to be settled by the Board of Tax
Appeals for the District, and did not call for rulings
of nontaxability as a matter of law because of a
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia. D.C.Code Supp. V, T. 20, §
980 a(a).
**305 *442 Messrs. Glenn Simmon, Richmond B.
Keech, and Vernon E. West, all of Washington, D.C.,
for petitioner.
*444 Mr. Harry R. Turkel, of Washington, D.C., for
respondents.
*445 Mr. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of
the Court.
These cases, which have been argued together,
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 5
differ somewhat in facts, but each involves a
controversy as to whether respondent was domiciled
within the District of Columbia on December 31,
1939, within the meaning of Sec. 2(a) of the District
of Columbia Income Tax Act, FN1 which lays a tax on
‘the taxable income of every individual domiciled in
the District of Columbia on the last day of the taxable
year.’ The following facts appear from proceedings
before the Board of Tax Appeals for the District of
Columbia:
FN1 53 Stat. 1087; 20 D.C.Code (Supp. V,
1939) s 980a(a).
The respondent in No. 58, a single man, first
came to the District of Columbia in 1935 to work as
an economist in the Treasury Department, and was
blanketed into Civil Service in that position in July,
1938. He came here from Detroit, Michigan, and has
ever since continued to *446 be a registered voter and
has voted in the elections and primaries in Wayne
County, Michigan. He was born in New London,
Connecticut, in 1905, and when five years old moved
with his parents to Los Angeles, California where he
resided until 1926. when he removed to Berkeley,
California. His parents live in California. In 1929 he
completed his studies at Brown University and
immediately thereafter accepted employment in a
trust company in Detroit, Michigan, of which one of
his former professors at Brown was vice president.
While in Detroit, respondent lived first in a rooming
house and later in an apartment. He owns no property
there. In the District of Columbia he lives in an
apartment, which he has furnished himself. His
present employment pays him $6,500 a year, while
that which he left in Detroit paid but $6,000. He
testified before the Board of Tax Appeals that he
does not think he would improve his condition by
returning to Detroit, but that ‘It is the place to which I
will return if I ever become disemployed by the
Government, which I hope will not happen * * *.’
Although he has no present connection with the trust
company, he believes that he could go back with it if
he should return to Detroit. If a better position than
he now has should be offered in a city other than
Detroit, he ‘very likely would’ accept it, despite a
‘preference for Detroit’ based on a belief that he
‘would fit in more easily’ there.
Respondent claimed that Detroit was his ‘legal
residence’ and that he was not domiciled in the
62 S.Ct. 303
314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329
(Cite as: 314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303)
District of Columbia. The Board of Tax Appeals for
the District of Columbia found ‘as a fact’ that when
he came to Washington in 1935 he ‘had an intention
to remain and make his home in the District of
Columbia for an indefinite period of time; and that
such intention has ever since, and still does remain
with him; and that if he has any intention to return
and make his home in Detroit, it is a floating
intention.’ The Board held, however, ‘as *447 matter
of law,’ that on December 31, 1939, the last day of
the taxable year, petitioner was not domiciled in the
District of Columbia, believing that it was compelled
to do so by the decision of the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia in
**306Sweeney v. District of Columbia, 72 App.D.C.
30, 113 F.2d 25, 129 A.L.R. 1370, certiorari denied,
310 U.S. 631, 60 S.Ct. 1082, 84 L.Ed. 1402.
The respondent in No. 59 lived in the District of
Columbia for twenty-six years after coming here
from Pennsylvania in 1914 to accept a clerical
position of indefinite tenure under Civil Service in
the Patent Office. He was then on a year's leave of
absence from a railroad by which he was employed,
but continued in the Civil Service to the time of
hearing, becoming Chief Clerk of the Personnel and
Organization Division of the National Guard Bureau,
War Department, with offices in Washington. Single
when he came, in 1917 he married a native of
Washington, who died in 1935 without children.
Shortly after their marriage the couple purchased as a
home, premises at 1426 Massachusetts Avenue, S.E.,
in the District of Columbia, in which respondent still
lives. In about 1925, he purchased a lot at ‘Selby on
the Bay’ in nearby Maryland, and before his wife's
death he bought a building lot in the District of
Columbia, acting on his wife's pleas for a summer
place and a better residence. He agreed with his wife
that on his retirement six months would be spent at
Selby. He testified that he never desired to purchase
the lot in the District of Columbia, but did so at the
insistence of his wife. He put a ‘For Sale’ sign on it
when she died, and both lots, which he still owns, are
up for sale. He has deposits in three Washington
financial institutions and owns first trust notes on
property located in Maryland and Virginia.
In 1915 respondent became a member of a
Lutheran church in Washington, and has ever since
been an active member, at one time serving as
president of its Christian *448 Endeavor Society. He
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 6
is a contributor to Washington charities, a member of
the Motor Club of Washington, and of the
Washington units of ‘Tall Cedars of Lebanon’ and
the ‘Mystic Shrine,’ both identified with
freemasonry. He has filed his federal income-tax
returns with the Collector of Internal Revenue at
Baltimore, and always paid to the District of
Columbia an intangible property tax while that tax
was in effect.
Respondent had resided in Pennsylvania from
birth until he left for Washington. He claimed as his
‘legal residence’ the residence of his parents in
Harrisburg, where they still keep intact his room in
which are kept some of his clothes and childhood
toys. Though paying nothing as rent or for lodging,
he has from time to time made presents of money to
his parents. He has visited his parents' home in
Harrisburg over week ends at least eight times a year,
and has been there annually between Christmas and
the New Year. A registered voter in Pennsylvania, he
has voted in all its general elections since he became
of age. He paid the Pennsylvania poll tax until it was
superseded by an occupational tax, which he has also
paid. Payment of such taxes was a prerequisite to
voting.
In 1912 respondent became a life member of the
Robert Burns Lodge No. 464, Free and Accepted
Masons, and of the Harrisburg Consistory, Scottish
Rite, both Masonic bodies. While he resided in
Harrisburg he was a member of the Bible Class of the
Pine Street Presbyterian Church, which he still
attends on visits there, and to which he made
substantial contributions in 1939. He owns jointly
with his father a note secured by a mortgage on
Pennsylvania real estate. Respondent testified that he
expected to retire from Civil Service in four years
and intended then to sell his house and ‘leave
Washington.’
The Board found ‘as a fact’ that at the end of one
year after he came to the District in 1914 respondent
‘had an *449 intention to remain and make his home
in the District of Columbia for an indefinite period of
time and that intention remained with him, at least
until the death of his wife.’ As in No. 58, it
considered itself bound by the Sweeney case, supra,
and accordingly held ‘as a matter of law’ that the
petitioner was not domiciled in the District on
December 31, 1939, and never had been.
62 S.Ct. 303
314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329
(Cite as: 314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303)
The decisions in both cases were affirmed on
review by the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia. 73 App.D.C. 345, 119 F.2d
449; 73 App.D.C. 347, 119 F.2d 451.   The cases
were brought here on writs of certiorari because of
the importance of the questions involved.   313 U.S.
556, 61 S.Ct. 1103, 1104, 85 L.Ed. 1517.
**307 [1] Although the District of Columbia
Income Tax Act made ‘domicile’ the fulcrum of the
income tax, the first ever imposed in the District, it
set forth no definition of that word.  To ascertain its
meaning we therefore consider the Congressional
history of the Act, the situation with reference to
which it was enacted, and the existing judicial
precedents, with which Congress may be taken to
have been familiar in at least a general way.     United
States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 562, 60 S.Ct.
1034, 1038, 84 L.Ed. 1356.
As introduced into and passed by the House of
Representatives, the bill which, with amendments,
became the Act, laid a tax upon income of residents
from whatever source derived, and upon income of
nonresidents from sources within the District, with a
provision for credit for the payment of income taxes
elsewhere. H.R. 6577, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., ss 2(a),
4(a), 9(a), (b), D.C.Code Supp. V, T. 20, ss 980a(a),
980c(a), 980h(a, b). The bill was amended on the
floor of the House to except ‘Senators,
Representatives, Delegates, Resident Commissioners,
officers and employees of the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States.’ 84 Cong.Rec.
7036. It was unacceptable to the Senate in this form,
and it was agreed in conference that the tax should be
levied ‘upon every individual domiciled in the
District of Columbia *450 on the last day of the
taxable year,’ with no provision for credit for income
taxes paid elsewhere. H.R. Rep. Nos. 1093, 1206,
76th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 3; Sen. Doc. No. 92, 76th
Cong., 1st Sess., p. 3. This was agreed to by the
Senate and by the House of Representatives, and
became part of the Act under consideration.
The conference agreement was presented to the
Senate by Senator Overton, chairman of the Senate
conferees, with the following explanation: ‘Mr.
President, I now call attention to the fact that the
individual income tax is imposed only on those
domiciled in the District of Columbia. It, therefore,
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 7
necessarily excludes from its imposition all Senators
and Members of the House of Representatives, the
President of the United States, all Cabinet officers,
and Federal employees who have been brought into
the District from the various States of the Union to
serve their country in the National Capital, provided
such employees have not of their own volition
surrendered their domiciles in the States and have
voluntarily acquired domiciles within the District of
Columbia.’ 84 Cong.Rec. 8824. Senator Overton also
stated: ‘I took the position before the District of
Columbia Committee and in conference that I would
not support any legislation which would exempt
Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives and their official force from an
income tax in the District of Columbia but would
impose it on all others. I then took the position in
conference that if we imposed an income tax only on
those domiciled within the District, then we would be
imposing it only on those who of their own volition
had abandoned their domiciles in the States of their
origin and had elected to make their permanent home
or domicile here in the District of Columbia. Such
persons, it may be justly contended, have no cause to
complain against an income tax that is imposed upon
them only because they have *451 chosen to
establish within the District of Columbia their
permanent FN2 places of abode and to abandon their
domiciles within the States.’   84 Cong.Rec. 8825.
FN2 We do not understand ‘permanent’ to
have been used in a literal sense. Of course
it cannot be known without the gift of
prophecy whether a given abode is
‘permanent’ in the strictest sense. But
beyond this, it is frequently used in the
authorities on domicile to describe that
which is not merely ‘temporary,’ or to
describe a dwelling for the time being which
there is no presently existing intent to give
up. And further, compare a statement by
Representative Dirksen on the floor of the
House, 84 Cong.Rec. 8973.
[2] In the House, Representative Nichols,
chairman of the House conferees, and also chairman
of the House District Committee in charge of fiscal
affairs, submitted the conference report and stated:
‘Since the question of the effect of the word
‘domicile’ in this act has been raised, I think the
House would probably like to have the legal
62 S.Ct. 303
314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329
(Cite as: 314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303)
definition read: ‘Domicile is the place where one has
his true, fixed, permanent home and principal
establishment**308 and to which, whenever he is
absent, he has the intention of returning, and where
he exercises his political rights.FN3 * * * There must
exist in combination the fact of residence and animus
manendi-’ which means residence and his intention to
return (sic); so that under this definition he could
certainly live in the District of Columbia and have his
legal domicile in any other State in the United States.'
84 Cong.Rec. 8974.
FN3 Exercise of political rights elsewhere
cannot be considered as meant to be
conclusive on the issue of taxability in the
District. See statement by Representative
Dirksen on the floor of the House. Ibid.
Representative Bates, another of the House
conferees, stated in response to a question regarding
the possibility of triple taxation, ‘We raised that
particular point (in conference) because we are much
concerned about how those who come from our
States would be affected by the income-tax
provisions of the new law, and it was distinctly *452
understood that in this bill there should be no triple
taxation * * *.’ 84 Cong.Rec. 8973.
The unusual character of the National Gapital,
making the income tax a ‘very explosive and
controversial item,'FN4 was vividly before the
Congress, and must also be considered in construing
the statute imposing the tax.
FN4 84 Cong.Rec. 8972.
The District of Columbia is an exceptional
community. It is not a local municipal authority, but
was established under the Constitution as the seat of
the National Government. Those in Government
service here are not engaged in local enterprise,
although their service may be localized. Their work is
that of the nation, and their pay comes not from local
sources but from the whole country. Because of its
character as a federal city, there is no local political
constituency with whose activities those living in it
may identify themselves as a symbol of their
acceptance of a local domicile.
Not all who flock here are birds of a feather.
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 8
Some enter the Civil Service, finding tenure and pay
there more secure than in private enterprise. Political
ties are of no consequence in obtaining or
maintaining their positions. At the other entreme are
those who hold appointive office at the pleasure of
the appointing officer. These latter, as well as
appointive officers with definite but unprotected
tenure, and all elective officers, usually owe their
presence here to the intimate and influential part they
have played in community life in one of the States.
Relatively few persons here in any branch of the
Government service can truthfully and accurately lay
claim to an intention to sever themselves from the
service on any exact date. Persons in all branches
usually desire, quite naturally and properly, to
continue family life and to have the comforts of a
domestic establishment for whatever may be the term
of their stay here. This is true of *453 many Senators
and Congressmen, cited by Senator Overton as
typical of those whom the limitation of the statute to
persons ‘domiciled’ here ‘necessarily excludes.’
Turning to the judicial precedents for further
guidance in construing ‘domicile’ as used in the
statute, we find it generally recognized that one who
comes to Washington to enter the Government
service and to live here for its duration does not
thereby acquire a new domicile. More than a century
ago, Justice Parker of New Hampshire observed that
‘It has generally been considered that persons
appointed to public office under the authority of the
United States, and taking up their residence in
Washington for the purpose of executing the duties of
such office, do not thereby, while engaged in the
service of the government, lose their domicil in the
place where they before resided, unless they intend
on removing there to make Washington their
permanentFN5 residence.’ See Atherton v. Thornton, 8
N.H. 178, 180. By and large, subsequent cases have
taken a like view.FN6 It should also be observed *454
that a policy **309 against loss of domicile by
sojourn in Washington is expressed in the
constitutions and statutes of many states. FN7 Of
course no individual case, constitution, or statute is
controlling, but the general trend of these authorities
is a significant recognition that the distinctive
character of Washington habitation for federal
service is meaningful to those who are served as well
as to those in the service.
62 S.Ct. 303
314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329
(Cite as: 314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303)
FN5 See note 2, supra.
FN6 Walden v. Canfield, 2 Rob., La., 466;
Lesh v. Lesh, 13 Pa.Dist.R. 537; see
Woodworth v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.,
C.C., 18 F. 282, 284; Commonwealth v.
Jones, 12 Pa. 365, 371; cf. Newman v.
United States, 43 App.D.C. 53, 70, reversed
on another ground, 238 U.S. 537, 35 S.Ct.
881, 59 L.Ed. 1446; Deming v. United
States, 59 App.D.C. 188, 37 F.2d 818;
Campbell v. Ramsey, 150 Kan. 368, 388, 92
P.2d 819; Hannon v. Grizzard, 89 N.C. 115.
But cf. Bradstreet v. Bradstreet, 18 D.C.
229, 7 Mackey 229; Sparks v. Sparks, 114
Tenn. 666, 88 S.W. 173.
Professor Beale has summarized the cases as
follows: ‘Presence for the purpose of
performing the duties of a civil office will
not of itself effect a change of domicil; three
is no inference of animus manendi from the
fct of the new residence, since it is explained
by the fact of office holding. It makes no
difference whether the office is elective or
appointive; nor is it material whether the
appointment is in its nature merely
temporary or has a degree of permanence,
though the permanence of the appointment
is an element to be considered in
determining the domicil.’ I Beale, Conflict
of Laws s 22.6. See also, Restatement,
Conflict of Laws, pp. 42, 43.
FN7 1 Beale, Conflict of Laws, p. 172, note
2.
[3][4] From these various data on Congressional
intent, it is apparent that the present cases are not
governed by the tests usually employed in cases
where the element of federal service in the Federal
City is not present. FN8 We hold that a man does not
acquire a domicile in the District simply by coming
here to live for an indefinite period of time while in
the Government service. A contrary decision would
disregard the statements made on the floor of
Congress as to the meaning of the statute, fail to give
proper weight to the trend of judicial decisions, with
which Congress should be taken to have been
cognizant, and result in a wholesale finding of
domicile on the part of Government servants quite
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 9
obviously at variance with Congressional policy.
Further, Congress did not intend that one living here
indefinitely while in the Government service be held
domiciled here simply because he does not maintain
a domestic establishment at the place he hails from.
Such a rule would result in taxing those unable to
maintain two establishments, and exempting those
able to meet such a burden-thus reversing the usual
philosophy of income tax as one based on ability to
pay.
FN8 Cf. Williamson v. Osenton, 232 U.S.
619, 624, 34 S.Ct. 442, 58 L.Ed. 758;
Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561, 35 S.Ct.
164, 59 L.Ed. 360.
[5][6] On the other hand, we hold that persons
are domiciled here who live here and have no fixed
and definite intent to return and make their homes
where they were formerly *455 domiciled.FN9 A
decision that the statute lays a tax only on those with
an affirmative intent to remain here the rest of their
days would be at odds with the prevailing concept of
domicile, and would give the statute scope far
narrower than the Congress must have intended.
FN9 This is not inconsistent with our
holding that domicile here does not follow
from more indefiniteness of the period of
one's stay. While the intention to return must
be fixed, the date need not be; while the
intention to return must be unconditional,
the time may be, and in most cases of
necessity is, contingent. The intention must
not waver before the uncertainties of time,
but one may not be visited with unwelcome
domicile for lacking the gift of prophecy.
[7] Cases falling clearly within such broad rules
aside, the question of domicile is a difficult one of
fact to be settled only by a realistic and conscientious
review of the many relevant (and frequently
conflicting) indicia of where a man's home FN10 is and
according to the established modes of proof.
FN10 Of course this term does not have the
magic qualities of a divining rod in locating
domicile. In fact, the search for the domicile
of any person capable of acquiring a
domicile of choice is but a search for his
‘home’. See Beale, Social Justice and
62 S.Ct. 303
314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329
(Cite as: 314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303)
Business Costs, 49 Harv.L.Rev. 593, 596; 1
Beale, Conflict of Laws, s 19.1.
[8][9] The place where a man lives is properly
taken to be his domicile until facts **310 adduced
establish the contrary.   Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. 400,
423, 14 L.Ed. 472; Anderson v. Watt, 138 U.S. 694,
706, 11 S.Ct. 449, 452, 34 L.Ed. 1078. The taxing
authority is warranted in treating as prima facie
taxable any person quartered in the District on tax
day whose status it deems doubtful. It is not an
unreasonable burden upon the individual, who knows
best whence he came, what he left behind, and his
own attitudes, to require him to establish domicile
elsewhere if he is to escape the tax.
[10] To hold taxable one who contends that he is
not domiciled here, the Board need not find the exact
time when the ‘attitude and relationship of person to
place’ which constitute domicile, Texas v. Florida,
306 U.S. 398, 411, 59 S.Ct. 563, 570, 830, 83 L.Ed.
817, 121 A.L.R. 1179, were *456 formed, so long as
it finds they were formed before the tax day. What
was at first a firm intent to return may have withered
gradually in consequence of dissolving associations
elsewhere and growing interests in the District. It is
common experience that this process usually is
unmarked by any dramatic or even sharply defined
episode. The taxing authority need not find just when
the intent was finally dissipated; it is enough that it
finds that this has happened before the tax day.
[11] If one has at any time become domiciled
here, it is his burden to establish any change of status
upon which he relies to escape the tax.     Anderson v.
Watt, supra, 138 U.S. at page 706, 11 S.Ct. at page
452, 34 L.Ed. 1078.
[12] In order to retain his former domicile, one
who comes to the District to enter Government
service must always have a fixed and definite intent
to return and take up his home there when separated
from the service. A mere sentimental attachment will
not hold the old domicile. And residence in the
District with a nearly equal readiness to go back
where one came from or to any other community
offering advantages upon the termination of service is
not enough.
[13] One's testimony with regard to his intention
is of course to be given full and fair consideration,
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 10
but is subject to the infirmity of any self-serving
declaration, and may frequently lack persuasiveness
or even be contradicted or negatived by other
declarations and inconsistent acts.
[14] Whether or not one votes where he claims
domicile is highly relevant but by no means
controlling.FN11 Each state prescribes for itself the
qualifications of its voters, and each has its own
machinery for determining compliance with such
qualifications. A vote cast without challenge and
adjudication may indicate only laxity of the *457
state officials, and even an adjudication of the right to
vote cannot preclude the levy of a tax by an arm of
the Federal Government. On the other hand, failure to
vote elsewhere is, of course, not conclusive that
domicile is here.
FN11 See statements of Representative
Dirksen, 84 Cong.Rec. 8973.
[15] Also of great significance is the nature of
the position which brings one to or keeps him in the
service of the Government: whether continuous or
emergency, special or war-time in character; whether
requiring fixed residence in the District or only
intermittent stays; whether entailing monetary
sacrifices or betterment; and whether political or non-
political. Those dependent upon the action of a local
constituency on the first Tuesday after the first
Monday in November are of course loath to leave
their local identifications behind when taking up
Government duties in Washington.
Of course the manner of living here, taken in
connection with one's station in life, is relevant.  Did
he hire a furnished room or establish himself by the
purchase of a house?   Or did he rent a house or
apartment?   Has he brought his family and
dependents here?   Has he brought his goods?   What
relations has he to churches, clubs, lodges, and
investments that identify him with the District?
All facts which go to show the relations retained
to one's former place of abode are relevant in
determining domicile.  What bridges have been kept
and what have been burned?   Does he retain a place
of abode there, or is there a family home with which
he retains identity?   Does he have investments in
local property or enterprise which **311 attach him
to the community?   What are his affiliations with the
62 S.Ct. 303 Page 11
314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329
(Cite as: 314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303)

professional, religious, and fraternal life of the

community, and what other associations does he END OF DOCUMENT
cling to?   How permanent was his domicile in the
community from which he came?   Had it long been a
family seat, or was he there a bird of passage?  
Would a return to *458 the old community pick up
threads of close association?   Or has he so severed
his relations that his old community is as strange as
another?   Did he pay taxes in the old community
because of his retention of domicile which he could
have avoided by giving it up? Were they nominal or
substantial?   In view of the legislative history
showing that Congress was concerned lest there be
‘triple taxation’-Federal, State and District-the Board
should consider whether taxes similar in character to
those laid by this Act have been paid elsewhere. See
statement of Representative Bates, quoted supra, p. 6.

Our mention of these considerations as being

relevant must not be taken as an indication of the
relative weights to be attached to them, as an implied
negation of the relevance of others, or as an effort to
suggest a formula to handle all cases that may arise,
or the possibility of devising one.

[16] In view of what we have said, it is clear that

the present cases did not call for rulings of non-
taxability ‘as a matter of law.’ On the other hand, we
do not consider whether taxability follows as a matter
of law, as petitioner contends it does, for the factual
inquiries and findings of the Board, made under a
view of the law not our own, are quite likely not in all
respects those which the Board would have made had
it proceeded with knowledge of our opinion, and are
in some respects ambiguous for the purpose of
decision in accordance with it. Accordingly we
reverse the decisions by the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia and remand
these cases to that Court with directions to remand to
the Board for further proceedings in conformity with
this opinion.

Reversed.

The CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice ROBERTS, and

Mr. Justice REED, took no part in the consideration
or decision of these cases.

U.S. 1941.
District of Columbia v. Murphy
314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.
 Date of Printing: Oct 25, 2012

KEYCITE

District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329 (U.S.Dist.Col.,
Dec 15, 1941) (NO. 58, 59)
History

Direct History

1District of Columbia v. De Hart, 73 App.D.C. 345, 119 F.2d 449 (App.D.C. Mar 24, 1941) (NO.
7779)
Certiorari Granted by
2District of Columbia v. Dehart, 313 U.S. 556, 61 S.Ct. 1104, 85 L.Ed. 1518 (U.S.Dist.Col. May 26,
1941) (NO. 992)
AND Judgment Reversed by
=> 3District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329 (U.S.Dist.Col. Dec 15,
1941) (NO. 58, 59)

4District of Columbia v. Murphy, 73 App.D.C. 347, 119 F.2d 451 (App.D.C. Mar 24, 1941) (NO.
7780)
Certiorari Granted by
5District of Columbia v. Murphy, 313 U.S. 556, 61 S.Ct. 1103, 85 L.Ed. 1517 (U.S.Dist.Col. May 26,
1941) (NO. 991)
AND Judgment Reversed by
=> 6District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329 (U.S.Dist.Col. Dec 15,
1941) (NO. 58, 59)

Court Documents

Appellate Court Documents (U.S.A.)

U.S. Appellate Briefs

7Dist. of Columbia v. Murphy, 1941 WL 53345 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug. 22, 1941) Brief for
Petitioner (NO. 58)
8Dist. of Columbia v. Hart, 1941 WL 53019 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov. 5, 1941) Brief for
Respondent. (NO. 58)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

9Dist. of Columbia v. Murphy, 1941 WL 53020 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov. 5, 1941) Brief for
Respondent. (NO. 58)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.
 Date of Printing: Oct 25, 2012

KEYCITE

District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329 (U.S.Dist.Col., Dec 15, 1941) (NO.
58, 59)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.
 Date of Printing: Oct 25, 2012

KEYCITE

District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329 (U.S.Dist.Col.
Dec 15, 1941) (NO. 58, 59)
Citing References

Positive Cases (U.S.A.)

   Examined
1Weitknecht v. District of Columbia, 195 F.2d 570, 571+, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 291, 292+ (D.C.Cir. Mar
20, 1952) (NO. 10906) " HN: 5,12,15 (S.Ct.)
2Pace v. District of Columbia, 135 F.2d 249, 250+, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 332, 333+ (App.D.C. Apr 12,
1943) (NO. 8274) HN: 10,11,16 (S.Ct.)

   Discussed
3Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fiske's Estate, 128 F.2d 487, 490+, 42-2 USTC P 9485, 9485+,
29 A.F.T.R. 540, 540+ (C.C.A.7 May 23, 1942) (NO. 7846) " HN: 5,10,12 (S.Ct.)
4Arbaugh v. District of Columbia, 176 F.2d 28, 29+, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 97, 98+ (D.C.Cir. May 23,
1949) (NO. 9913) " HN: 3,5,12 (S.Ct.)
5Beckham v. District of Columbia, 163 F.2d 701, 701+, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 296, 296+ (App.D.C. Sep
15, 1947) (NO. 9470) " HN: 5,8,12 (S.Ct.)
6U.S. v. Scott, 472 F.Supp. 1073, 1076+, 79-2 USTC P 9439, 9439+ (N.D.Ill. Jun 18, 1979) (NO. 79
CR 236) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
7In re Hodgson, 167 B.R. 945, 950+ (D.Kan. May 19, 1994) (NO. 89-42002-7, 90-7095, 92-4169-
RDR) " HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
8Medline Diamed, LLC v. Libassi, 2010 WL 5463831, *2+ (N.D.Ohio Dec 29, 2010) (NO. 5:10-CV-
02906) " HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
9Crawford v. U.S., 4 Cl.Ct. 699, 703+, 53 A.F.T.R.2d 84-1054, 84-1054+, 84-1 USTC P 9294, 9294+
(Cl.Ct. Mar 12, 1984) (NO. 156-80T) " HN: 3,16 (S.Ct.)
10Hall v. C.I.R., 1978 WL 3035, *1+, T.C. Memo. 1978-360, 1978-360+, 37 T.C.M. (CCH) 1500,
1500+, T.C.M. (P-H) P 78,360, 78360+ (U.S.Tax Ct. Sep 12, 1978) (NO. 6379-75) HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
11Taira v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 51 T.C. 662, 666+ (Tax Ct. Jan 29, 1969) (NO. 5240-64)
HN: 12,15 (S.Ct.)
12Bank-Fund Staff Federal Credit Union v. Cuellar, 639 A.2d 561, 573+ (D.C. Mar 15, 1994) (NO. 91-
CV-1325, 92-CV-282) " HN: 5,12 (S.Ct.)
13Andrews v. District of Columbia, 443 A.2d 566, 569+ (D.C. Apr 01, 1982) (NO. 81-78) " HN: 7,8,11
(S.Ct.)
14Alexander v. District of Columbia, 370 A.2d 1327, 1328+ (D.C. Feb 24, 1977) (NO. 8032) " HN:
5,8,12 (S.Ct.)
15Stephenson v. Stephenson, 134 A.2d 105, 106+ (D.C.Mun.App. Jul 01, 1957) (NO. 1979) " HN:
3,5,12 (S.Ct.)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

    Cited
16Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 109 S.Ct. 1597, 1608+, 490 U.S. 30, 48+, 104
L.Ed.2d 29, 29+, 57 USLW 4409, 4409+ (U.S.Miss. Apr 03, 1989) (NO. 87-980) " HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
17District of Columbia v. Carter, 93 S.Ct. 602, 610, 409 U.S. 418, 432, 34 L.Ed.2d 613, 613
(U.S.Dist.Col. Jan 10, 1973) (NO. 71-564) " HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
18Williams v. State of N.C., 65 S.Ct. 1092, 1096+, 325 U.S. 226, 231+, 89 L.Ed. 1577, 1577+, 157
A.L.R. 1366, 1366+ (U.S.N.C. May 21, 1945) (NO. 84) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
19District of Columbia v. Pace, 64 S.Ct. 406, 407+, 320 U.S. 698, 699+, 88 L.Ed. 408, 408+
(U.S.Dist.Col. Jan 10, 1944) (NO. 117) HN: 10,16 (S.Ct.)
20Krasnov v. Dinan, 465 F.2d 1298, 1300 (3rd Cir.(Pa.) Sep 07, 1972) (NO. 72-1337)
21Korn v. Korn, 398 F.2d 689, 691 (3rd Cir.(Virgin Islands) Jun 28, 1968) (NO. 16881) HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
22C.I.R. v. Swent, 155 F.2d 513, 517, 46-1 USTC P 9266, 9266, 34 A.F.T.R. 1376, 1376 (C.C.A.4 May
08, 1946) (NO. 5449)
23Kastel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 136 F.2d 530, 533, 43-1 USTC P 9490, 9490, 31
A.F.T.R. 200, 200 (C.C.A.5 (La.) Jun 17, 1943) (NO. 10560) " HN: 8,15 (S.Ct.)
24Stifel v. Hopkins, 477 F.2d 1116, 1123, 23 A.L.R. Fed. 595, 595 (6th Cir.(Ohio) May 01, 1973) (NO.
72-1424) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
25Maple Island Farm v. Bitterling, 196 F.2d 55, 58+ (8th Cir.(Minn.) Apr 24, 1952) (NO. 14455) " HN:
7,8,15 (S.Ct.)
26Keys Youth Services, Inc. v. City of Olathe, KS, 248 F.3d 1267, 1272, 20 NDLR P 209, 209, 2001
DJCAR 2453, 2453 (10th Cir.(Kan.) May 11, 2001) (NO. 99-3387, 99-3388) " HN: 7 (S.Ct.)
27U.S. v. Brewer, 486 F.2d 507, 509, 32 A.F.T.R.2d 73-5541, 73-5541, 73-2 USTC P 9612, 9612 (10th
Cir.(Okla.) Jul 27, 1973) (NO. 73-1102)
28King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 505 F.3d 1160, 1172, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 120, 120 (11th Cir.(Fla.)
Oct 24, 2007) (NO. 06-10519, 06-10994)
29Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370, 408, 375 U.S.App.D.C. 140, 178 (D.C.Cir. Mar 09,
2007) (NO. 04-7041) (in dissent) HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
30U.S. v. Mills, 964 F.2d 1186, 1204, 296 U.S.App.D.C. 65, 83 (D.C.Cir. May 29, 1992) (NO. 90-
3007, 90-3008) " (in dissent) HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
31Lane-Burslem v. C. I. R., 659 F.2d 209, 211+, 212 U.S.App.D.C. 163, 165+, 48 A.F.T.R.2d 81-5708,
81-5708+, 81-2 USTC P 9544, 9544+ (D.C.Cir. Jul 13, 1981) (NO. 80-1535, 80-1536) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
32Shafer v. Children's Hospital Soc. of Los Angeles, Cal., 265 F.2d 107, 113, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 123,
129, 1 Fed.R.Serv.2d 754, 754 (D.C.Cir. Feb 26, 1959) (NO. 14478) HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
33Johnson v. Jacoby, 195 F.2d 563, 566, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 280, 283 (D.C.Cir. Mar 13, 1952) (NO.
10860) (in dissent)
34Butler v. District of Columbia, 181 F.2d 790, 792, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 207, 209 (D.C.Cir. Feb 20, 1950)
(NO. 10243)
35Collier v. District of Columbia, 161 F.2d 649, 651, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 145, 147 (App.D.C. May 05,
1947) (NO. 9465)
36Shilkret v. Helvering, 138 F.2d 925, 928+, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 178, 181+, 43-2 USTC P 9619, 9619+,
31 A.F.T.R. 866, 866+ (App.D.C. Nov 01, 1943) (NO. 8387, 8402) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
37Rogers v. Rogers, 130 F.2d 905, 906, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 297, 298 (App.D.C. Oct 12, 1942) (NO.
8203)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

38Beedy v. District of Columbia, 126 F.2d 647, 649+, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 289, 291+ (App.D.C. Mar 16,
1942) (NO. 7922) " HN: 3,4 (S.Ct.)
39Slate v. Shell Oil Co., 444 F.Supp.2d 1210, 1218 (S.D.Ala. Jul 27, 2006) (NO. CIV.A. 06-0149-WS-
M) " HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
40Audi Performance & Racing, LLC v. Kasberger, 273 F.Supp.2d 1220, 1226 (M.D.Ala. Jul 03, 2003)
(NO. CIV.A.03-F-396-E)
41McDonald v. Equitable Life Ins. Co. of Iowa, 13 F.Supp.2d 1279, 1281 (M.D.Ala. Jul 30, 1998) (NO.
CIV. A. 98-T-560-N)
42Simmons v. Simmons, 86 F.Supp. 102, 103 (S.D.Cal. Sep 23, 1949) (NO. 10082)
43Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Fields, 81 F.Supp. 54, 63 (S.D.Cal. Nov 01, 1948) (NO. 7854) " HN: 8
(S.Ct.)
44Gallagher v. U.S., 66 F.Supp. 743, 744, 46-1 USTC P 9285, 9285, 35 A.F.T.R. 164, 164 (N.D.Cal.
May 28, 1946) (NO. 23523) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
45Banner v. U.S., 303 F.Supp.2d 1, 4 (D.D.C. Mar 11, 2004) (NO. CIV.A. 03-1587(ESH)) " HN: 12
(S.Ct.)
46Seegars v. Ashcroft, 297 F.Supp.2d 201, 236 (D.D.C. Jan 14, 2004) (NO. CIV.A.03-834(RBW)) "
HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
47Williams v. Washington Post Co., 1990 WL 129440, *2 (D.D.C. Aug 23, 1990) (NO. CIV. A. 89-
3256-LFO) HN: 8,10,12 (S.Ct.)
48Best v. District of Columbia, 743 F.Supp. 44, 47 (D.D.C. Aug 10, 1990) (NO. CIV A 89-3382-LFO)
HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
49Uebersee Finanz-Korporation, A.G. v. Brownell, 133 F.Supp. 615, 618 (D.D.C Jun 17, 1955) (NO.
CIV. 26453)
50Ruoff v. Brownell, 14 F.R.D. 371, 372+ (D.D.C Jun 30, 1953) (NO. CIV 4649-48) " HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
51Moore v. North America Sports, Inc., 2008 WL 5157502, *1 (N.D.Fla. Dec 09, 2008) (NO.
5:08CV343/RS/MD) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
52Jones v. Law Firm of Hill and Ponton, 141 F.Supp.2d 1349, 1355 (M.D.Fla. Mar 26, 2001) (NO.
6:00-CV-746-ORL31JGG)
53Duff v. Beaty, 804 F.Supp. 332, 335+ (N.D.Ga. Oct 02, 1992) (NO. CIVA 4:91-CV-209-HLM) HN:
10 (S.Ct.)
54Toombs v. WalMart, 2011 WL 4435688, *2 (S.D.Ill. Sep 23, 2011) (NO. CIV. 11-761-GPM) " HN:
8 (S.Ct.)
55Phillips v. Wellpoint, Inc., 2010 WL 4877718, *4 (S.D.Ill. Nov 23, 2010) (NO. 10-CV-357-JPG)
HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
56In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litigation, 2009 WL 2488301, *3 (N.D.Ill. Aug 13, 2009) (NO. 08 C
7082, 09 C 2192, MDL 1997) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
57Ner Tamid Congregation of North Town v. Krivoruchko, 620 F.Supp.2d 924, 943 (N.D.Ill. Jun 03,
2009) (NO. 08 C 1261) HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
58Kitson v. Bank of Edwardsville, 2006 WL 3392752, *6 (S.D.Ill. Nov 22, 2006) (NO. CIV 06-528-
GPM) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
59Markham v. Vancura, 2002 WL 1291807, *1 (N.D.Ill. Jun 11, 2002) (NO. 02 C 50096) HN: 13
(S.Ct.)
60Century Commodity Corp. v. Data-Trend Commodities Inc., 1986 WL 9557, *5 (N.D.Ill. Aug 22,
1986) (NO. 83 C 1681)
61Larsen v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Intern., Inc., 2007 WL 3341698, *4 (S.D.Iowa Nov 09, 2007) (NO. 4:06-
CV-0077-JAJ) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

62Coffman v. Myers, 2007 WL 1703553, *1 (D.Kan. Jun 12, 2007) (NO. 06-2297-CM) HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
63National Inspection & Repairs, Inc. v. George S. May Intern. Co., 202 F.Supp.2d 1238, 1242 (D.Kan.
May 02, 2002) (NO. 01-2489-JAR) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
64Lloyd v. Loy, 2001 WL 950261, *2 (D.Kan. Jul 23, 2001) (NO. CIV. A. 01-2001-KHV) HN: 8
(S.Ct.)
65Spreier v. Rosenberg, 2001 WL 1325953, *1 (D.Kan. Feb 28, 2001) (NO. 00-1289-KMH) HN: 8
(S.Ct.)
66Cressler v. Neuenschwander, 930 F.Supp. 1458, 1460+ (D.Kan. Jun 20, 1996) (NO. CIV.A.95-CV-
1034-DES) HN: 8,9 (S.Ct.)
67Hayes v. Board of Regents of Kentucky State University, 362 F.Supp. 1172, 1174+ (E.D.Ky. Aug 03,
1973) (NO. 410) " HN: 14 (S.Ct.)
68Old Towne Development Group, L.L.C. v. Matthews, 2009 WL 3254875, *4+ (M.D.La. Oct 08,
2009) (NO. CIV A 09-224-FCP-CN) HN: 8,15 (S.Ct.)
69Whitney Nat'l Bank v. Chatelain, 1991 WL 213917, *2+ (E.D.La. Oct 15, 1991) (NO. CIV. A. 91-
2432) HN: 8,15 (S.Ct.)
70Lindsey v. Gluth, 1988 WL 72855, *1 (E.D.La. Jun 30, 1988) (NO. CIV.A. 88-444) HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
71Computer People, Inc. v. Computer Dimensions Intern., Inc., 638 F.Supp. 1293, 1295+ (M.D.La. Jul
21, 1986) (NO. CIV. A. 85-886-B) HN: 8,15 (S.Ct.)
72Von Knorr v. Miles, 60 F.Supp. 962, 965+ (D.Mass. May 09, 1945) (NO. 2513) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
73White v. Hofferbert, 88 F.Supp. 457, 460, 50-1 USTC P 9197, 9197, 38 A.F.T.R. 1459, 1459 (D.Md.
Feb 03, 1950) (NO. CIV. 4444) HN: 3 (S.Ct.)
74Feely v. Sidney S. Schupper Interstate Hauling System, 72 F.Supp. 663, 668 (D.Md. Jun 09, 1947)
(NO. CIV. 3157, CIV. 3158) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
75JBHM Educ. Group, LLC v. Bailey, 2009 WL 1298283, *3+ (N.D.Miss. May 08, 2009) (NO.
CIVA108CV89SAJAD) " HN: 7,8 (S.Ct.)
76Barricks v. Barnes-Jewish Hosp., 2012 WL 3548038, *2 (E.D.Mo. Aug 16, 2012) (NO. 4:11-CV-
1386 CEJ) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
77Capato v. Astrue, 2010 WL 1076522, *6 (D.N.J. Mar 23, 2010) (NO. 08-5405 (DMC)) " HN: 8
(S.Ct.)
78Lung v. O'Cheskey, 358 F.Supp. 928, 931 (D.N.M. Apr 09, 1973) (NO. 8314 CIV)
79Westhab, Inc. v. City of New Rochelle, 2004 WL 1171400, *15 (S.D.N.Y. May 03, 2004) (NO. 03
CIV. 8377(CM)) " HN: 7 (S.Ct.)
80Bogan v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 103 F.Supp.2d 698, 700 (S.D.N.Y. Jun 22, 2000) (NO. 99
CIV. 5772 (BDP)) HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
81JTS Corp. v. GFL Advantage Fund Ltd., 1999 WL 731606, *5, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 90,673, 90673
(S.D.N.Y. Sep 20, 1999) (NO. 98 CIV. 497 (BJS)) HN: 9 (S.Ct.)
82Galu v. Attias, 923 F.Supp. 590, 595 (S.D.N.Y. Apr 30, 1996) (NO. 94 CIV. 8761 (JES))
83Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co. v. Morse, 779 F.Supp. 347, 349 (S.D.N.Y. Dec 26, 1991) (NO. 91
CIV. 2293 (MBM)) HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
84Farrell v. Ashton, 1991 WL 29261, *1+ (S.D.N.Y. Feb 28, 1991) (NO. 89 CIV. 6706(WCC)) HN:
5,12 (S.Ct.)
85Willis v. Westin Hotel Co., 651 F.Supp. 598, 601 (S.D.N.Y. Sep 08, 1986) (NO. 85 CIV. 2056
(CBM)) HN: 9 (S.Ct.)
86Bevilaqua v. Bernstein, 642 F.Supp. 1072, 1074 (S.D.N.Y. Sep 03, 1986) (NO. 86 CIV. 10084 (EW))
HN: 12 (S.Ct.)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 87Sanial v. Bossoreale, 279 F.Supp. 940, 944 (S.D.N.Y. Apr 21, 1967) (NO. 63 CIV. 586) HN: 13
(S.Ct.)
88Bergenstein v. Sawhny, 2007 WL 963305, *3 (N.D.Ohio Mar 28, 2007) (NO. 1:04CV1373) HN: 13
(S.Ct.)
89National City Bank v. Aronson, 474 F.Supp.2d 925, 929+ (S.D.Ohio Feb 21, 2007) (NO. 2:06-CV-
189) HN: 3 (S.Ct.)
90Anthony v. Small Tube Mfg. Corp., 535 F.Supp.2d 506, 515 (E.D.Pa. Sep 27, 2007) (NO. CIV.A. 06-
CV-4419) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
91Shaw v. Pottsville Hosp.-Warne Clinic, 1991 WL 117390, *6 (E.D.Pa. Jun 24, 1991) (NO. CIV. A.
88-4444) " HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
92Liakakos v. CIGNA Corp., 704 F.Supp. 583, 586 (E.D.Pa. Nov 23, 1988) (NO. CIV A 87-0390) "
HN: 5,12 (S.Ct.)
93Tanzymore v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 325 F.Supp. 891, 894 (E.D.Pa. Jan 21, 1971) (NO. CIV. 69-
675) HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
94Campbell v. Oliva, 295 F.Supp. 616, 618 (E.D.Tenn. Dec 11, 1968) (NO. 2279) " HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
95Middleton v. Stephenson, 2012 WL 2224451, *4+ (D.Utah Jun 14, 2012) (NO. 2:11-CV-313 TS) "
HN: 14 (S.Ct.)
96Haburn v. CVS Pharmacy, 2010 WL 3783959, *3 (W.D.Va. Sep 27, 2010) (NO. 7:10-CV-00422) "
HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
97United Co. v. Keenan, 2006 WL 2994989, *5 (W.D.Va. Oct 20, 2006) (NO. CIV A 1:06CV00071)
HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
98Allen v. Maryland Cas. Co., 259 F.Supp. 505, 512 (W.D.Va. Sep 22, 1966) (NO. 66-C-3-L) HN:
3,12 (S.Ct.)
99Winkler v. Daniels, 43 F.Supp. 265, 267 (E.D.Va. Jan 16, 1942) (NO. 154) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
100General Elec. Co. v. Cugini, 640 F.Supp. 113, 115 (D.Puerto Rico Jul 01, 1986) (NO. CIV. 85-0302
(JAF)) " HN: 5,12 (S.Ct.)
101Rivera v. Celebrezze, 248 F.Supp. 807, 811 (D.Puerto Rico Jan 05, 1966) (NO. CIV. 168-65) HN: 8
(S.Ct.)
102In re Morad, 323 B.R. 818, 824+ (1st Cir.BAP (Mass.) Apr 06, 2005) (NO. 02-15186-JBR, MW 04-
019) HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
103In re Donald, 328 B.R. 192, 203, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6950, 6950, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R.
9458, 9458 (9th Cir.BAP (Cal.) Jul 19, 2005) (NO. CC-04-1570-KMAB, LA 04-24773-SB) HN: 13
(S.Ct.)
104In re Lordy, 214 B.R. 650, 662, 11 Fla. L. Weekly B75, B75 (Bankr.S.D.Fla. Jul 28, 1997) (NO. 96-
0625-BKC-PGH-A, 96-0929-BKC-PGH-A, 96-0939-BKC-PGH-A, 96-31947-BKC-PGH)
105In re Sparfven, 265 B.R. 506, 518+, Bankr. L. Rep. P 78,498, 78498+ (Bankr.D.Mass. Jul 25, 2001)
(NO. 99-14615) HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
106In re John Richards Homes Bldg. Co., L.L.C., 298 B.R. 591, 609 (Bankr.E.D.Mich. Sep 17, 2003)
(NO. 02-54689-R) HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
107In re Marsico, 2001 WL 1757046, *3+, 2001 BNH 47, 047+ (Bankr.D.N.H. Dec 10, 2001) (NO. 01-
12120-JMD) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
108In re Felgner, 2011 WL 5056994, *2 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio Oct 24, 2011) (NO. 11-32274)
109Estate of Jack ex rel. Blair v. U.S., 54 Fed.Cl. 590, 596, 90 A.F.T.R.2d 2002-7580, 2002-7580, 2002-
2 USTC P 60,452, 60452 (Fed.Cl. Nov 27, 2002) (NO. 01-410T)
110Stamer v. U.S., 1960 WL 8454, *4, 148 Ct.Cl. 482, 490 (Ct.Cl. Jan 20, 1960) HN: 12 (S.Ct.)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

111Berkery v. C.I.R., 90 T.C. 259, 262, 90 T.C. No. 20, 20, 56 USLW 2480, 2480, Tax Ct. Rep. (CCH)
44,568, 44568, Tax Ct. Rep. Dec. (P-H) 90.20, 90.20 (U.S.Tax Ct. Feb 16, 1988) (NO. 13900-82,
22182-82) HN: 8,9 (S.Ct.)
112Okamoto v. C.I.R., 1981 WL 10851, *1+, T.C. Memo. 1981-59, 1981-59+, 41 T.C.M. (CCH) 857,
857+, T.C.M. (P-H) P 81,059, 81059+ (U.S.Tax Ct. Feb 17, 1981) (NO. 12592-78) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
113Selby v. C.I.R., 1980 WL 4194, *1+, T.C. Memo. 1980-357, 1980-357+, 40 T.C.M. (CCH) 1139,
1139+, T.C.M. (P-H) P 80,357, 80357+ (U.S.Tax Ct. Sep 08, 1980) (NO. 1540-77) HN: 8,12 (S.Ct.)
114Pope v. C.I.R., 1980 WL 4170, *1+, T.C. Memo. 1980-332, 1980-332+, 40 T.C.M. (CCH) 1045,
1045+, T.C.M. (P-H) P 80,332, 80332+ (U.S.Tax Ct. Aug 25, 1980) (NO. 14204-78, 3806-79, 677-
75) HN: 5,12 (S.Ct.)
115Kamikido v. C.I.R., 1979 WL 3453, *1+, T.C. Memo. 1979-402, 1979-402+, 39 T.C.M. (CCH) 261,
261+, T.C.M. (P-H) P 79,402, 79402+ (U.S.Tax Ct. Sep 25, 1979) (NO. 5018-78) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
116Lane-Burslem v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 72 T.C. 849, 855 (U.S.Tax Ct. Aug 22, 1979)
(NO. 934-75) HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
117Ross v. C.I.R., 1978 WL 3054, *1, T.C. Memo. 1978-380, 1978-380, 37 T.C.M. (CCH) 1560, 1560,
T.C.M. (P-H) P 78,380, 78380 (U.S.Tax Ct. Sep 25, 1978) (NO. 8978-75) HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
118Lane-Burslem v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 70 T.C. 613, 623 (U.S.Tax Ct. Aug 03, 1978)
(NO. 934-75) HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
119Sonkin v. C.I.R., 1978 WL 2792, *1+, T.C. Memo. 1978-91, 1978-91+, 37 T.C.M. (CCH) 421, 421+,
T.C.M. (P-H) P 78,091, 78091+ (U.S.Tax Ct. Mar 06, 1978) (NO. 2520-74) " HN: 13,14 (S.Ct.)
120Smith v. C.I.R., 1975 WL 2931, *1, T.C. Memo. 1975-314, 1975-314, 34 T.C.M. (CCH) 1367, 1367,
T.C.M. (P-H) P 75,314, 75314 (U.S.Tax Ct. Oct 20, 1975) (NO. 8819-72) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
121Santiago v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 61 T.C. 53, 60 (U.S.Tax Ct. Oct 17, 1973) (NO.
6652-71)
122Pashby v. C.I.R., 1966 WL 890, *1, T.C. Memo. 1966-132, 1966-132, 25 T.C.M. (CCH) 667, 667,
T.C.M. (P-H) P 66,132, 66132 (Tax Ct. Jun 17, 1966) (NO. 723-65) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
123Pentland v. C. I. R., 11 T.C. 116, 122 (Tax Ct. Jul 30, 1948) (NO. 12925) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
124Swent v. C. I. R., 5 T.C. 33, 37 (Tax Ct. May 14, 1945) (NO. 4381) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
125Shilkret v. C.I.R., 1942 WL 302, *1+, 46 B.T.A. 1163, 1170+ (B.T.A. May 19, 1942) (NO. 103773,
103774) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
126Whittell v. Franchise Tax Bd., 41 Cal.Rptr. 673, 679+, 231 Cal.App.2d 278, 288+ (Cal.App. 1 Dist.
Dec 16, 1964) (NO. CIV. 21821) HN: 14,16 (S.Ct.)
127In re Estate of Derricotte, 744 A.2d 535, 538 (D.C. Jan 27, 2000) (NO. 95-PR-1008, 96-PR-170, 96-
PR-68, 97-PR-1437, 97-PR-239, 97-PR-433, 97-PR-94) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
128District of Columbia v. Woods, 465 A.2d 385, 387 (D.C. Aug 04, 1983) (NO. 82-411) " HN: 9,11
(S.Ct.)
129Ceco Corp. v. Coleman, 441 A.2d 940, 949+ (D.C. Jan 27, 1982) (NO. 80-483) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
130Adams v. Adams, 136 A.2d 866, 868 (D.C.Mun.App. Dec 16, 1957) (NO. 2065)
131Jones v. Jones, 136 A.2d 580, 582 (D.C.Mun.App. Dec 05, 1957) (NO. 2059) " HN: 6 (S.Ct.)
132Jemison v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 32 A.2d 704, 705 (D.C.Mun.App. Jun 30, 1943) (NO. 88)
133Brown v. American Stores, 32 A.2d 388, 390 (D.C.Mun.App. Jun 08, 1943) (NO. 78) (in dissent)
134D'Elia & Marks Co. v. Lyon, 31 A.2d 647, 648 (D.C.Mun.App. May 11, 1943) (NO. 69)
135Mitchell v. Delaware State Tax Com'r, 42 A.2d 19, 22+, 3 Terry 589, 589+, 42 Del. 589, 597+
(Del.Super. Feb 14, 1945) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
136In re Schultz' Estate, 45 N.E.2d 577, 583, 316 Ill.App. 540, 553 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. Dec 09, 1942) (NO.

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 GEN. 42171) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
137Fitzpatrick v. Layne, 165 S.W.2d 13, 18, 291 Ky. 523, 523 (Ky. Oct 09, 1942)
138Brennan v. Friedell, 2 N.W.2d 547, 548, 212 Minn. 115, 118 (Minn. Feb 20, 1942) (NO. 33109) "
HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
139James C. WERTZ, Plaintiff, v. INGALLS SHIPBUILDING, INC., Defendant., 1997 WL 34611749,
*34611749+ (Trial Order) (Miss.Cir. Mar 27, 1997) Memorandum Opinion and Order (NO. 196-
CV-206(BR)(R)) HN: 8,15 (S.Ct.)
140McGee v. Bragg, 53 A.2d 428, 430, 94 N.H. 349, 352 (N.H. Jun 03, 1947) (NO. 3653) HN: 16
(S.Ct.)
141Lyon v. Glaser, 288 A.2d 12, 18, 60 N.J. 259, 272 (N.J. Mar 06, 1972) HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
142Borough of Sayreville v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 139 A.2d 97, 109, 26 N.J. 197, 219 (N.J. Feb 24,
1958) (NO. A-9) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
143Gosschalk v. Gosschalk, 138 A.2d 774, 780, 48 N.J.Super. 566, 577 (N.J.Super.A.D. Feb 06, 1958)
(NO. A-382) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
144Dalton v. Dalton, 59 N.Y.S.2d 68, 71, 270 A.D. 269, 272 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. Dec 28, 1945) HN: 3
(S.Ct.)
145In re Timblin's Will, 162 N.Y.S.2d 783, 786, 6 Misc.2d 344, 348 (N.Y.Sur. May 27, 1957) HN: 11
(S.Ct.)
146In re Walter's Estate, 48 N.Y.S.2d 952, 955 (N.Y.Sur. Apr 11, 1944) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
147In re Daly's Estate, 36 N.Y.S.2d 954, 960, 178 Misc. 943, 949 (N.Y.Sur. Aug 15, 1942) " HN: 15
(S.Ct.)
148Davis v. Davis, 57 N.E.2d 703, 704+, 42 Ohio Law Abs. 105, 105+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Aug 01, 1944)
(NO. 3641) " HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
149Elwert v. Elwert, 248 P.2d 847, 853+, 196 Or. 256, 270+, 36 A.L.R.2d 741, 741+ (Or. Oct 08, 1952)
HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
150Appeal of Mevey, 4 Pa. 80, 88, 1846 WL 4933, *8, 4 Barr. 80, 80 (Pa. 1846)
151Israeloff v. Norberg, 1977 WL 190994, *2+ (R.I.Super. Sep 20, 1977) (NO. 75-867) " HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
152Gasque v. Gasque, 143 S.E.2d 811, 812, 246 S.C. 423, 427 (S.C. Sep 01, 1965) (NO. 18398)
153Parrott v. Abraham, 146 S.W.3d 623, 627 (Tenn.Ct.App. Feb 11, 2003) (NO. M2001-02938-COA-
R3JV)
154White v. Manchin, 318 S.E.2d 470, 482, 173 W.Va. 526, 538 (W.Va. Jul 13, 1984) (NO. 16312,
16344) HN: 3 (S.Ct.)
155Lokpez v. Fernandez, 61 D.P.R. 522, 541 (P.R. Mar 10, 1943) (NO. 8506)
156Hommel v. Scott, 1996 WL 776632, *4 (Terr.V.I. Nov 21, 1996) (NO. CIV. 134/1995) HN: 13
(S.Ct.)

   Mentioned
157Martinez v. Bynum, 103 S.Ct. 1838, 1848, 461 U.S. 321, 340, 75 L.Ed.2d 879, 879, 10 Ed. Law Rep.
11, 11 (U.S.Tex. May 02, 1983) (NO. 81-857) (in dissent) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
158Spiegel's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue., 69 S.Ct. 337, 356, 335 U.S. 632, 688, 93
L.Ed. 288, 288, 49 USTC P 10,702, 10702, 37 A.F.T.R. 495, 495 (U.S. Jan 17, 1949) (NO. 3, 5)
159Fisher v. U.S., 66 S.Ct. 1318, 1332, 328 U.S. 463, 491, 90 L.Ed. 1382, 1382, 166 A.L.R. 1176, 1176
(U.S.Dist.Col. Jun 10, 1946) (NO. 122) (in dissent) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
160Northwest Airlines v. State of Minnesota, 64 S.Ct. 950, 953, 322 U.S. 292, 297, 88 L.Ed. 1283, 1283,

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 153 A.L.R. 245, 245 (U.S.Minn. May 15, 1944) (NO. 33) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
161Williams v. State of North Carolina, 63 S.Ct. 207, 213, 317 U.S. 287, 299, 87 L.Ed. 279, 279, 143
A.L.R. 1273, 1273 (U.S.N.C. Dec 21, 1942) (NO. 29) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
162State of Maine v. U.S., 134 F.2d 574, 576, 1943 A.M.C. 495 (C.C.A.1 (Me.) Mar 27, 1943) (NO.
3854) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
163Central States Co-ops. v. Watson Bros. Transp. Co., 165 F.2d 392, 396 (C.C.A.7 (Ill.) Dec 12, 1947)
(NO. 9291)
164Anwo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 607 F.2d 435, 438, 197 U.S.App.D.C. 121, 124
(D.C.Cir. Jun 19, 1979) (NO. 77-1879) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
165Grieco v. World Fuel Services, Inc., 2012 WL 440700, *3 (N.D.Cal. Feb 10, 2012) (NO. C-11-05672
JCS)
166Lancaster v. Daymar Colleges Group, LLC, 2012 WL 884898, *5 (W.D.Ky. Mar 14, 2012) (NO.
3:11-CV-157-R)
167Albury v. Daymar Colleges Group, LLC, 2012 WL 884902, *5 (W.D.Ky. Mar 14, 2012) (NO. 3:11-
CV-573-R)
168Wiggins v. Daymar Colleges Group, LLC, 2012 WL 884907, *5 (W.D.Ky. Mar 14, 2012) (NO. 5:11-
CV-36-R)
169McKenith v. Century Products Co., Inc., 1999 WL 33537214, *2 (N.D.Miss. Mar 31, 1999) (NO.
4:98CV4-B-B)
170Mohr v. Allen, 407 F.Supp. 483, 488 (S.D.N.Y. Jan 28, 1976) (NO. 75 CIV. 2039(MP))
171In re Riggs, 51 F.Supp. 961, 961 (E.D.Pa. Sep 30, 1943) (NO. 21858) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
172In re Laing, 329 B.R. 761, 770, 54 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1155, 1155, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 352,
352 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. Aug 01, 2005) (NO. 904BK03621ALP, ADV.PRO. 904AP402ALP)
173In re Adell, 321 B.R. 562, 571, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 144, 144 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. Jan 31, 2005)
(NO. 9:03-BK-23684-ALP)
174In re Young, 276 B.R. 683, 686, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 171, 171 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. Feb 19, 2002)
(NO. 00-14419-9P7)
175In re Dotson, 2010 WL 2756766, *7 (Bankr.N.D.Ill. Jul 12, 2010) (NO. 09-B-72550)
176In re Fabert, 2008 WL 104104, *2, Bankr. L. Rep. P 81,359, 81359 (Bankr.D.Kan. Jan 09, 2008)
(NO. 06-21539)
177U.S. v. Pitre, 1970 WL 7391, *1, 41 C.M.R. 811, 814 (NCMR Feb 27, 1970) (NO. NCM 69-3677)
178In re Estate of Banayot, 2009 WL 3338310, *3 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. Oct 19, 2009) (NO. B211271) HN:
10 (S.Ct.)
179In re Glassford's Estate, 249 P.2d 908, 911, 114 Cal.App.2d 181, 186, 34 A.L.R.2d 1259, 1259
(Cal.App. 2 Dist. Nov 12, 1952) (NO. CIV. 19154) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
180Murphy v. Travelers Ins. Co., 207 P.2d 595, 598, 92 Cal.App.2d 582, 588 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. Jun 24,
1949) (NO. CIV. 3915)
181Abulqasim v. Mahmoud, 49 A.3d 828, 835 (D.C. Aug 09, 2012) (NO. 08-FM-228) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
182In re Orshansky, 804 A.2d 1077, 1091 (D.C. Aug 15, 2002) (NO. 02-PR-170) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
183Fink v. Katz, 68 A.2d 813, 815 (D.C.Mun.App. Oct 17, 1949) (NO. 851)
184Rummel v. Peters, 51 N.E.2d 57, 61, 314 Mass. 504, 512 (Mass. Sep 13, 1943) HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
185State ex rel. King v. Walsh, 484 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Mo. Aug 05, 1972) (NO. 58037) HN: 3,16 (S.Ct.)
186State on Inf. of McKittrick v. Wiley, 160 S.W.2d 677, 686, 349 Mo. 239, 253 (Mo. Feb 26, 1942)
(NO. 37532) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
187In re Ingersol's Estate, 272 P.2d 1003, 1004, 128 Mont. 230, 234 (Mont. Jul 16, 1954) (NO. 9299)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
188Transeau v. City of Philadelphia, 1947 WL 2672, *7, 57 Pa. D. & C. 359, 371 (Pa.Com.Pl. 1947)

Administrative Decisions (U.S.A.)

Board of Immigration Appeals Decisions

189In the Matter of C-----, 1 I. & N. Dec. 631, 645, 1943 WL 6350, *12 (BIA Dec 06, 1943) (NO.
56127/820) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)

Comptroller General Decisions

190TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, 1966 WL 1701, *7, 46 Comp. Gen. 556, 563, B- 152,306,
152306, 1966 CPD P 110, 110 (Comp.Gen. Dec 12, 1966)

Interior Board of Contract Appeals Decisions

191Appeal of Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., 1959 WL 77 (I.B.C.A.), *77, 66 Interior Dec. 71, 71, 59-1
BCA P 2110, 2110, IBCA 36, 36, IBCA 50, 50 (I.B.C.A. Mar 23, 1959) (NO. 14-04-002-50)
HN: 13 (S.Ct.)

U.S. Attorney General Opinions

19241 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 377, FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1944-ISABELLA AND PINE FLAT
PROJECTS-RECLAMATION LAWS (1958) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)

State Administrative Materials (U.S.A.)

193Hon. W.R. Hudson ATTN: Pete Ahlfield, 1981 WL 38629 (Alaska A.G.), *2 (1981) HN: 12
(S.Ct.)
194In the Matter of the Appeal of W. S. CHARNLEY, 1942 WL 386 (Cal.St.Bd.Eq.), *2+ (1942)
HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
1951988 Conn. Op. Atty. Gen. 235, Brian R. Lensink (1988) HN: 14 (S.Ct.)
19641 Mont. Op. Atty. Gen. 4, J. Fred Bourdeau (1985) HN: 14,16 (S.Ct.)
1971948 N.Y. Op. Atty. Gen. No. 137, Mr. Israel Barash (1948) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
1981948 N.Y. Op. Atty. Gen. No. 137, Mr. Israel Barash (1948) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
1992001 WL 408665 (R.I.Div.Tax.), *4+ (2001) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
2002000 WL 1929765 (R.I.Div.Tax.), *4+ (2000) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
2012000 WL 1929763 (R.I.Div.Tax.), *4+ (2000) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
2022000 WL 567596 (R.I.Div.Tax.), *7+ (2000) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2031999 WL 396893 (R.I.Div.Tax.), *5+ (1999) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
2041999 WL 86892 (R.I.Div.Tax.), *5+ (1999) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
2051998 WL 751229 (R.I.Div.Tax.), *4+ (1998) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
2061998 WL 374463 (R.I.Div.Tax.), *4+ (1998) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
2071998 WL 165677 (R.I.Div.Tax.), *4+ (1998) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
2081998 WL 34611 (R.I.Div.Tax.), *3+ (1998) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
2091998 WL 34602 (R.I.Div.Tax.), *6+ (1998) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
2101997 WL 786341 (R.I.Div.Tax.), *4+ (1997) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
2111985 WL 69659 (Va.Dept.Tax.), *1 (1985)
2121984 WL 60885 (Va.Dept.Tax.), *2+ (1984)
2131983 WL 43474 (Va.Dept.Tax.), *1+ (1983) HN: 12 (S.Ct.)

Other Administrative Materials (U.S.A.)

214APPEALS OF MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC., 66 Decisions of the Department of the
Interior 71 (1959)
215OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WASHINGTON, D.C., 65 Decisions of the Department
of the Interior 549 (1958)
216In re Koda, 1975 WL 21255, *21255, 187 U.S.P.Q. 254, 255 (Com'r Pat. & Trademarks Jun 24,
1975) (BNA Version)
217In re Keen, 1975 WL 21319, *21319, 187 U.S.P.Q. 477, 477 (Com'r Pat. & Trademarks Jun 24,
1975) (BNA Version)
218In re Geissler, 1974 WL 19945, *19945+, 182 U.S.P.Q. 499, 500+ (Com'r Pat. & Trademarks May
20, 1974) (BNA Version)
219In re Jackson, 1974 WL 19906, *19906, 181 U.S.P.Q. 724, 725 (Com'r Pat. & Trademarks Mar 13,
1974) (BNA Version)
220In re Bramham, 1974 WL 19905, *19905, 181 U.S.P.Q. 723, 724 (Com'r Pat. & Trademarks Feb 22,
1974) (BNA Version)

Secondary Sources (U.S.A.)

221Change of domicil by public officer or employee, 129 A.L.R. 1382 (1940) HN: 3,4 (S.Ct.)
222BNA Tax Management Federal Portfolios No. 803 WS 4 HN: 14 (S.Ct.)
223Casey Federal Tax Practice s 8:47, Admissions-Statements of Intent (2011)
224Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition s 1:102, Government officials (2012) HN: 1,16 (S.Ct.)
225McQuillin The Law of Municipal Corporations s 44.193, Income taxes (2012) HN: 3,4,5 (S.Ct.)
226RIA All States Tax Guide 3065, Residence.
227Scoles, Hay, Borchers and Symeonides Hornbook on Conflict of Laws § 4.IV, IV. Traditional
Requirements for the Acquisition of a Domicile of Choice (2010)
228State Taxation P 20.03, RESIDENCE, DOMICILE, AND PLACE OF ABODE (2012)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

229Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. s 3620, Citizenship of Particular Persons-Government and
Organization Officials (2012) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
23039 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 587, Establishment of Person's Domicil (2012) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
231Am. Jur. 2d District of Columbia s 8, Generally; as municipal corporation (2012)
232Am. Jur. 2d Domicil s 31, Government employees (2012) HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
233Am. Jur. 2d Domicil s 54, Residence; presumption and inference (2012) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
234Am. Jur. 2d Domicil s 60, Declarations (2012) HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
235Am. Jur. 2d Domicil s 61, Declarations-Consideration in conjunction with other evidence (2012) HN:
13 (S.Ct.)
236Am. Jur. 2d Domicil s 62, Exercise of civil and political rights (2012) HN: 14 (S.Ct.)
237Am. Jur. 2d Federal Courts s 672, Government officials (2012) HN: 4 (S.Ct.)
238Am. Jur. 2d Statutes s 77, Construction by courts in earlier cases (2012) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
239CJS District of Columbia s 4, Status (2012) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
240CJS District of Columbia s 41, Income taxes (2012) HN: 5,12,15 (S.Ct.)
241CJS Domicil s 34, Public officials and employees (2012) HN: 3,5,12 (S.Ct.)
242TAKING IT WITH THEM THE DYNAMICS OF CHANGING A STATE INCOME TAX
RESIDENCE, 24 Akron L. Rev. 321, 362+ (1990) HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
243ERISA: EXTRACONTRACTUAL DAMAGES MANDATED FOR BENEFIT CLAIMS ACTIONS,
36 Ariz. L. Rev. 611, 666 (1994) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
244NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, 9 Engage: J. Federalist Soc'y Prac. Groups 12,
14 (2008)
245THE IMPORTANCE OF DOMICILE IN ASSET PRESERVATION PLANNING, 79-NOV Fla. B.J.
30, 33 (2005) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
246THE SUPREME COURT'S NEW RULES, 68 Harv. L. Rev. 20, 94 (1954) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
247EVIDENTIARY FACTORS IN THE DETERMINATION OF DOMICIL, 61 Harv. L. Rev. 1232,
1240+ (1948) HN: 12 (S.Ct.)
248TEACHING, STUDYING, AND RESEARCHING LAW ABROAD: TAXES ON VACATIONS, 5
Hous. J. Int'l L. 53, 91 (1982) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
249THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT
GUARANTEE, 37 How. L.J. 333, 392 (1994)
250PLANNING PERSONAL AFFAIRS WITHIN THE GENERAL TAX FRAMEWORK, 20 JAG
Journal 131, 136 (1966)
251WHERE DO YOU LIVE?, 1949 JAG Journal 8, 10 (1949) HN: 3,5 (S.Ct.)
252SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR v. CALIFORNIA AND THE FEDERAL "CONSISTENCY
PROVISION' OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT, LIKE IT OR NOT?, 7 J. Energy
L. & Pol'y 337, 359 (1986)
253ERISA: JURY TRIAL MANDATED FOR BENEFIT CLAIMS ACTION, 25 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 361,
418 (1992)
254HOME SWEET HOME: A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO DOMICILE, 177 Mil. L. Rev. 49, 90+
(2003) HN: 11 (S.Ct.)
255THE DETERMINATION OF DOMICILE, 65 Mil. L. Rev. 133, 149+ (1974)
256THE IMPLEMENTATION OF "BALANCED DIVERSITY" THROUGH THE CLASS ACTION
FAIRNESS ACT, 84 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 300, 332 (2009) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 257TAX LAW APPENDIX, 59 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1915, 1919+ (1984)
258INDIANS-DOMICILE: FEDERAL DEFINITIONS OF DOMICILE DETERMINES
JURISDICTION UNDER INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT, 66 N.D. L. Rev. 553, 577+ (1990)
HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
259STIFEL v. HOPKINS REVISITED: DOMICILE AND THE EFFECTS OF COMPULSION, 32
Rutgers L.J. 583, 615+ (2001) HN: 3,4,5 (S.Ct.)
260KELLY v. ROBINSON: AN EROSION OF THE FRESH START CONCEPT FOR DEBTORS IN
BANKRUPTCY, 32 St. Louis U. L.J. 103, 133 (1987) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
261BIBLIOGRAPHY, 8 Stan. L. Rev. 60, 67 (1955)
262STATE TAX OBLIGATIONS CAN SURVIVE OUT-OF-STATE MOVE, 53 Tax'n for Acct. 339,
339 (1994) HN: 11 (S.Ct.)
263STATE TAX OBLIGATIONS CAN SURVIVE OUT-OF-STATE MOVE, 23 Tax'n for Law. 224,
224 (1995) HN: 11 (S.Ct.)
264CAN GRANNY HAVE A NEW HOME? RESOLVING THE DILEMMA OF DEMENTIA AND
DOMICILE IN FEDERAL DIVERSITY JURISDICTION CASES, 79 U. Colo. L. Rev. 545, 585+
(2008) HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
265MULIT-STATE TAXATION OF PERSONAL INCOME, 111 U. Pa. L. Rev. 974, 994+ (1963) HN:
4 (S.Ct.)
266ERISA: ANTI-ALIENATION SUPERIORITY IN BANKRUPTCY, 94 W. Va. L. Rev. 411, 494
(1992) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
267IMPACT OF DOMICLE, RESIDENCE AND CITIZENSHIP OF TESTATORS, GRANTORS AND
BENEFICIARIES OR SHOULD YOU PROTECT YOUR CLIENT FROM CREEPING PALM
TREE DISEASE OR LET THEM SUCCUMB TO IT AND JUST TREAT THE SYMPTOMS, C644
American Law Institute-American Bar Association 521+ (1991) HN: 14,16 (S.Ct.)
26850 BNA Daily Report for Executives K-5, 2004, INCOME TAXES: FACTS. (2004) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
269238 BNA Daily Report for Executives H-3, 2002, ESTATE TAXES: FACTS. (2002) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
27050 BNA Daily Tax Report K-5, 2004, INCOME TAXES: FACTS. (2004) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
271238 BNA Daily Tax Report H-3, 2002, ESTATE TAXES: FACTS. (2002) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)

Court Documents

Appellate Court Documents (U.S.A.)

Appellate Petitions, Motions and Filings

272Malburg v. The People of the State of California, 2012 WL 2056341, *1+ (Appellate Petition, Motion
and Filing) (U.S. Jun 05, 2012) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 11-1487)
273Astrue v. Capato, 2011 WL 5098759, *1+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Oct 26,
2011) Reply Brief for the Petitioner (NO. 11-159)
274Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 2008 WL 2199938, *2199938+ (Appellate
Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. May 23, 2008) Brief in Opposition (NO. 07-1239) HN: 11
(S.Ct.)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

Appellate Briefs
275Lozman v. The City of Riviera Beach, Florida, 2012 WL 3027160, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul
19, 2012) Brief for the Maritime Law Association of the United States as Amicus Curiae
Supporting Respondent (NO. 11-626) " HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
276Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 2008 WL 4154536, *4154536+ (Appellate Brief)
(U.S. Sep 08, 2008) Brief for the Respondents (NO. 07-1239)
277Wilson H. ELKINS, President, University of Maryland, Petitioner, v. Juan Carlos MORENO et al.,
Respondents., 1977 WL 189382, *189382+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 27, 1977) Brief for
Respondents (NO. 77-154) " HN: 5,12 (S.Ct.)
278General Motors Corp. v. Dist. of Columbia, 1965 WL 115580, *115580+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar
05, 1965) Reply Brief for the Petitioner (NO. 352)
279Southern Pacific Co. v. Gileo, 1956 WL 89244, *89244+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 10, 1956) Brief
for Petitioner Southern Pacific Company (NO. 257) " HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
280McVay v. McVay, 1956 WL 89100, *89100+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 07, 1956) Brief for
Appellant (NO. 186) HN: 5,12 (S.Ct.)
281Granville-Smith v. Granville-Smith, 1954 WL 72875, *72875+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 15, 1954)
Brief for the Petitioner (NO. 261)
282Alton v. Alton, 1954 WL 72696, *72696+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 02, 1954) Brief for the
Petitioner (NO. 531)
283Alton v. Alton, 1954 WL 72695, *72695+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 11, 1954) Petition for a Writ
of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (NO. 531) HN: 10
(S.Ct.)
284Dist. of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., Inc., 1953 WL 78448, *78448+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S.
Apr 23, 1953) Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae (NO. 617) " HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
285U.S. v. Hayman, 1951 WL 82299, *82299+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 12, 1951) Reply Brief for
the United States (NO. 23)
286Savorgnan v. U.S., 1949 WL 50374, *50374+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Sep 26, 1949) Brief for
Petitioner (NO. 48) HN: 7,8 (S.Ct.)
287Rice v. Rice, 1948 WL 47279, *47279+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 06, 1948) Brief of the
Respondent (NO. 117) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
288Coe v. Coe, 1947 WL 44256, *44256 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 07, 1947) Brief for the
Respondent. (NO. 37) HN: 3 (S.Ct.)
289Dist. of Columbia v. Pace, 1943 WL 54449, *54449+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 25, 1943)
Supplemental Brief on Behalf of Petitioner (NO. 117) HN: 10,16 (S.Ct.)
290Frederick Carlton Carl LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF STATE KIMBERLY
GUADAGNO, Attorney General Paula Dow, Camden County Clerk Joseph Ripa, Burlington County
Clerk Timothy Tyler, Atlantic County Clerk Edward P. McGettigan and John Does I-X (fictitious
names), jointly, severally, and in the alternative, Defendants-Respondents., 2011 WL 8476645, *1+
(Appellate Brief) (3rd Cir. Sep 12, 2011) Reply Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant in Further Support of
Appeal (NO. 11-3401)
291Robert L. MALONE, Appellant, v. Walter T. REDAVID, and Joseph P. Caranci, Jr., tdba ReDavid &
Caranci; John W. Holsten; Francis R. Alberti; John C. Holsten; Joanne H. Holsten; American Land
Transfer Associates; Penn Title Insurance Co.; JJW Management, Inc. tdba JJW Management, Inc.
Pension Trust, Appellees., 1998 WL 34107930, *34107930+ (Appellate Brief) (3rd Cir. Aug 17,
1998) Brief of Appellant (NO. 98-1375) " HN: 5,10,12 (S.Ct.)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

292Jeffrey M. MONAHAN, Appellant, v. Eric A. ROTTKAMP, Appellee., 1993 WL 13121249,
*13121249+ (Appellate Brief) (3rd Cir. Nov 10, 1993) Brief of Appellee (NO. 93-1663) HN:
9,12 (S.Ct.)
293COMMUNITY MOTORS PROPERTY ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellee, v.
MCDEVITT STREET BOVIS, INC., formerly known as McDevitt & Street Company, Appellant.,
1994 WL 16048408, *16048408+ (Appellate Brief) (4th Cir. Sep 30, 1994) Appellee's Brief (NO.
94-1949) HN: 8,15 (S.Ct.)
294Clifton Gregory RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Willy J. MARTIN, Jr., Defendant-
Appellee., 2011 WL 2191284, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Apr 19, 2011) Original Brief of
Defendant-Appellee (NO. 11-30061) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
295Elmira PRESTON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS MEMORIAL
MEDICAL CENTER, INC. d/b/a Memorial Medical Center, Defendant-Appellee, Lifecare
Management Services, L.L.C. and Lifecare Hospitals Of New Orleans, L.L.C., Defendants-
Appellants., 2007 WL 4516445, *4516445+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Mar 12, 2007) Reply Brief of
Appellants, Lifecare Management Services, L.L.C. and Lifecare Hospitals of New Orleans,
L.L.C. (NO. 07-30132, 07-30160) " HN: 7,8 (S.Ct.)
296Elmira PRESTON, et al., Plaintiffs/-Appellees, v. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS MEMORIAL
MEDICAL CENTER, INC. d/b/a Memorial Medical Center, Defendant-Appellee, LIFECARE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.L.C., LIFECARE HOSPITALS OF NEW ORLEANS, L.L.C.,
Defendants-Appellants., 2007 WL 5162537, *5162537+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Mar 12, 2007)
Reply Brief of Appellants, Lifecare Management Services, L.L.C. and Lifecare Hospitals of
New Orleans, L.L.C. (NO. 07-30132, 07-30160) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
297Elmira PRESTON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS MEMORIAL
MEDICAL CENTER, INC. d/b/a Memorial Medical Center, Defendant-Appellee, Lifecare
Management Services, L.L.C. and Lifecare Hospitals of New Orleans, L.L.C., Defendants-
Appellants., 2007 WL 7309041, *7309041+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Mar 12, 2007) Reply Brief of
Appellants, Lifecare Management Services, L.L.C. and Lifecare Hospitals of New Orleans,
L.L.C. (NO. 07-30132, 07-30160)
298Cheryl WEEMS, Individually and on Behalf of Her Deceased Mother, Veola MOSBY, and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Touro INFIRMARY, Defendant-Appellee,
and Shono, Inc., d/b/a Specialty Hospital of New Orleans, Defendant-Appellant; Elmira Preston, et
al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Tenet Healthsystems Memorial Medical Center, Inc. d/b/a Memorial
Medical Center, Defendant-Appellee, Lifecare Management Services, LLC,, 2007 WL 4516444,
*4516444+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Mar 09, 2007) Brief of Defendant-Appellee Touro
Infirmary (NO. 07-30132, 07-30160) HN: 9 (S.Ct.)
299Cheryl WEEMS, Individually and on Behalf of Her Deceased Mother, Veola Mosby, and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Touro INFIRMARY, Defendant-Appellee,
Shono, Inc., d/b/a Specialty Hospital of New Orleans, Defendant-Appellant. Elmira Preston, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Tenet Healthsystems Memorial Medical Center, Inc. d/b/a Memorial Medical
Center, Defendant-Appellee. Lifecare Management Services, LLC,, 2007 WL 7309040, *7309040+
(Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Mar 09, 2007) Brief of Defendant-Appellee Touro Infirmary (NO. 07-
30132, 07-30160)
300Elmira PRESTON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS MEMORIAL
MEDICAL CENTER, INC. d/b/a Memorial Medical Center, Defendant-Appellees, Lifecare
Management Services, L.L.C. and Lifecare Hospitals of New Orleans, L.L.C., Defendants-
Appellants., 2007 WL 4516442, *4516442+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Mar 08, 2007) Brief of
Appellee, Tenet Healthsystem Memorial Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Memorial Medical Center
(NO. 07-30132, 07-30160)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

301Elmira PRESTON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS MEMORIAL
MEDICAL CENTER, INC. d/b/a Memorial Medical Center, Defendant-Appellees. LIFECARE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.L.C. and Lifecare Hospitals of EW Orleans, L.L.C., Defendants-
Appellants., 2007 WL 5162534, *5162534+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Mar 08, 2007) Appeal from
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Civil Action No. 06-3179
Section ""L'', Judge Fallon (NO. 07-30132, 07-30160)
302Elmira PRESTON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS MEMORIAL
MEDICAL CENTER, INC., d/b/a Memorial Medical Center, Defendant-Appellees, Lifecare
Management Services, L.L.C. and Lifecare Hospitals of New Orleans, L.L.C., Defendants-
Appellants., 2007 WL 7309039, *7309039+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Mar 08, 2007) Brief of
Appellee, Tenet Healthsystem Memorial Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Memorial Medical Center
(NO. 07-30132, 07-30160)
303Elmira PRESTON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS MEMORIAL
MEDICAL CENTER, INC. d/b/a Memorial Medical Center, Defendant-Appellee, Lifecare
Management Services, L.L.C. and Lifecare Hospitals of New Orleans, L.L.C., Defendants-
Appellants., 2007 WL 4516441, *4516441+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Feb 21, 2007) Brief of
Appellants, Lifecare Management Services, L.L.C. and Lifecare Hospitals of New Orleans,
L.L.C. (NO. 07-03160, 07-30132) HN: 7,8 (S.Ct.)
304Elmira PRESTON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS MEMORIAL
MEDICAL CENTER, INC. d/b/a Memorial Medical Center, Defendant-Appellee, LIFECARE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.L.C., LIFECARE HOSPITALS OF NEW ORLEANS, L.L.C.,
Defendants-Appellants., 2007 WL 5162532, *5162532+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Feb 19, 2007)
Brief of Appellants, Lifecare Management Services, LLC. and Lifecare Hospitals of New
Orleans, L.L.C. (NO. 07-3013207-30160) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
305Cheryl WEEMS, Individually and on Behalf of Her Deceased Mother, Veola Mosby, and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Touro INFIRMARY, Defendant-Appellee,
and Shono, Inc., d/b/a Specialty Hospital of New Orleans, Defendant-Appellant. Elmira PRESTON,
Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER,
INC. d/b/a Memorial Medical Center, Defendant-Appellee, Lifecare Management Services, LLC,,
2007 WL 5162538, *5162538+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. 2007) Brief of Defendant-Appellee
Touro Infirmary (NO. 07-30132, 07-30160) HN: 9 (S.Ct.)
306Pamela Amy MCKENITH, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Asia Alexandria
McKenith, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CENTURY PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., et al,
Defendants, CENTURY PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., Defendant - Appellant., 1999 WL
33727467, *33727467+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Aug 05, 1999) Brief for Appellant, Century
Products Company (NO. 99-60251) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
307David F. COURY, Plaintiff/Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Alain PROT, Defendant/Appellant/Cross-
Appellee., 1995 WL 17110861, *17110861+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Aug 09, 1995)
Supplemental Brief of David F. Coury, Plaintiff/Appellee/Cross-Appellant (NO. 94-20084, 94-
20694) " HN: 5,10,12 (S.Ct.)
308David F. COURY, Plaintiff/Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Alain PROT, Defendant/Appellant/Cross-
Appellee., 1995 WL 17077151, *17077151+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Jul 03, 1995) Supplemental
Brief of David F. Coury, Plaintiff/Appellee/Cross-Appellant (NO. 94-20084) " HN:
5,10,12 (S.Ct.)
309Robert GILCHREST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA; Government Liquidation.com Long-Term Disability Plan c/o Government
Liquidation.com LLC, Defendants-Appellees., 2007 WL 2945602, *2945602+ (Appellate Brief) (6th
Cir. May 04, 2007) Reply Brief of Appellant (NO. 06-4143)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

310Betty Jean RICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard V. THOMAS, M.D., Defendant-Respondent., 2002
WL 32116074, *32116074+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Mar 20, 2002) Appellant's Brief (NO. 01-
36078) HN: 8,15 (S.Ct.)
311Thomas ANDERSON, Plaintiff / Appellant, v. James ANDERSON, et. al., Defendant / Appellee.,
2002 WL 32107805, *32107805+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. 2002) Brief for Appellant (NO. 01-
15537) " HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
312NAVAJO NATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian
Nation, Plaintiff Intervenor/Cross-Appellant, v. James W. NORRIS and Gayle Norris, Defendants-
Appellees., 2001 WL 34109924, *34109924+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jun 28, 2001) Appellees'
Answering Brief (NO. 01-35039, 01-35041) " HN: 8,15 (S.Ct.)
313NAVAJO NATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian
Nation, Plaintiff-Intervenor/Cross-Appellant, v. James W. NORRIS, Gayle Norris, Defendants-
Appellees., 2001 WL 34109923, *34109923+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Apr 25, 2001) Plaintiff-
Appellant Navajo Nation's Opening Brief (NO. 01-35039, 01-35041) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
314Jim Lee MORGAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et. al, Appellees., 1997 WL 33633869,
*33633869+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Apr 09, 1997) Appellant's Opening Brief (NO. 96-56560)
HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
315In Re William Edward TOWE and, Cora Florence Towe, Debtors, Department of Revenue of the
State of Montana, Appellant, v. William Edward TOWE and Cora Florence Towe, Appellees., 1995
WL 17163383, *17163383+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Dec 08, 1995) Brief of Appellees (NO. 95-
35926) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
316Thuc TRAN, Appellant, v. SONIC INDUSTRIES SVCS, INC., Appellee., 2011 WL 3663326, *1+
(Appellate Brief) (10th Cir. Aug 02, 2011) Appellant's Reply Brief (NO. 11-6032) " HN: 13
(S.Ct.)
317Brian MOORE, as Personal Representative of and on behalf of the Estate of Bernard P. Rice,
deceased, Appellant, v. NORTH AMERICA SPORTS, INC., a foreign corporation, d/b/a World
Triathlon Corporation, also d/b/a Ironman Triathlon, also d/b/a Ford Ironman Florida, and f/k/a
Ironman North America, and USA Triathlon, a foreign corporation, Appellees., 2009 WL 4276592,
*4276592+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir. Oct 13, 2009) Brief of Appellant (NO. 09-13954-B)
HN: 9 (S.Ct.)
318Natalie ALVAREZ, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate and Survivors of Elcira
Gil, and Gloria Gil, individually, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. UNIROYAL TIRE COMPANY, INC., a
foreign corporation, Sears, Roebuck and Company, a foreign corporation, Ford Motor Company, a
Delaware corporation, Defendants/Appellants., 2007 WL 2426228, *2426228+ (Appellate Brief)
(11th Cir. Jun 25, 2007) Appellants' Brief (NO. 07-12191-F) HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
319Jack KING, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CESSNA AIRCRAFT CO., A Kansas Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee., 2006 WL 4497039, *4497039+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir. Oct 06, 2006)
Brief for Appellee Cessna Aircraft Company (NO. 06-10519-II03CV20482) " HN: 8
(S.Ct.)
320Jack KING, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CESSNA AIRCRAFT CO., Defendant-Appellee,
Barbara BREGA, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CESSNA AIRCRAFT CO., et al., Defendant-Appellee.,
2006 WL 4497040, *4497040+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir. 2006) Reply Brief of Appellants (Case
No. 06-10519-II) (NO. 06-10519-II06-10994-) HN: 8,10,15 (S.Ct.)
321Peter C. LORDY and Virginia M. Lordy, Appellants, v. Robert C. FURR, Trustee and Employers
Insurance of Wausau, Appellees., 1998 WL 34152009, *34152009+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir. Oct
21, 1998) Reply Brief of Appellants (NO. 98-4828) HN: 6 (S.Ct.)
322Peter C. LORDY and Virginia M. Lordy, Appellants, v. Robert C. FURR, Trustee, and Employers
Insurance of Wausau, A Mutual Company, Appellees., 1998 WL 34152010, *34152010+ (Appellate

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 Brief) (11th Cir. Oct 08, 1998) Appellees' Brief (NO. 98-04828)
323Paul Douglas BURKE, Appellant, v. AIR SERV INTERNATIONAL, INC.; Louis Berger Group; the
Louis Berger Group, Inc., Appellees., 2011 WL 6179454, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Dec 12,
2011) Appellant's Final Reply Brief (NO. 11-7037)
324Paul Douglas BURKE, Appellant, v. AIR SERV INTERNATIONAL, INC.; Louis Berger Group;
The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Appellees., 2011 WL 5859057, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Nov
21, 2011) Appellant's Reply Brief (NO. 11-7037)
325John HELMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elena DOLETSKAYA, Defendant-Appellee., 2004 WL
1346421, *1346421+ (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Jun 01, 2004) Brief of Appellee (NO. 03-7179)
HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
326Keith THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee., 2009 WL 2566274, *2566274+
(Appellate Brief) (Alaska App. Mar 19, 2009) Brief of Appellant (NO. A-10267)
327STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO-MOBILE INSURANCE CO., Petitioner, v. Margaret ROACH and
Thomas Roach, Respondents., 2004 WL 3243807, *3243807+ (Appellate Brief) (Fla. 2004)
Respondents' Brief on the Merits (NO. SC04-2313) HN: 8,10,15 (S.Ct.)
328IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A.M.M. and A.N.M., 1997 WL 34626995,
*34626995+ (Appellate Brief) (Kan.App. Jul 14, 1997) Brief of Appellant (NO. 97-79034-A)
HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
329FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION CABINET, Department of Revenue, Appellant, v. Peter S.
and Linda SLAGEL, Appellees., 2007 WL 5876658, *5876658+ (Appellate Brief) (Ky.App. Aug 16,
2007) Brief on Behalf of Appellant (NO. 2007-CA-000495)
330Morris I. GLETZER a/k/a Morris I. Glecer, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Amos HARRIS., Defendant-
Appellant., 2007 WL 5829901, *5829901+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. Nov 09, 2007)
Reply Brief for Defendant-Appellant (NO. 2007-02391)
331Arthur J. DEBLOIS, Jr. and Eleanor A. Deblois, Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v. R. Gary CLARK, Tax
Administrator, Respondent/Defendant., 1998 WL 35244034, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (R.I. 1998) Brief
of Respondent, R. Gary Clark, Tax Administrator (NO. 98-0336-MP) " HN: 13 (S.Ct.)

Trial Court Documents (U.S.A.)

Trial Pleadings
332Shane WEYL, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Plaintiffs, v.
DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. and Does 1 through 10 , inclusive, Defendants., 2012 WL 4891035,
*1 (Trial Pleading) (C.D.Cal. Jul 26, 2012) Defendant's Notice of Removal (NO. CV12-6419-GW
(FFMX)) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
333Adina MEDEIROS, Plaintiff, v. ECOLAB INC., a Delaware corporation, and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants., 2012 WL 4890812, *1 (Trial Pleading) (C.D.Cal. Jul 05, 2012) Notice to
Federal Court of Removal of Civil Action From State Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections
1332(A)(1), 1441 and 1446 (NO. CV1205794JAKJCGX) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
334Doug LADORE, an Individual, for Himself and Those Similarly Situated; Moes 1 Through 3000 and
the Proposed Class, Plaintiffs, v. ECOLAB, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and Does 1 Through 100,
Inclusive, Defendants., 2011 WL 9349830, *1 (Trial Pleading) (C.D.Cal. Nov 10, 2011) Notice to
Federal Court of Removal of Civil Action from State Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 1332(d), 1441 and 1446 (NO. CV11-9386-GAF-FMOX) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
335Timothy SULU and Jonathan Verdugo, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. COCA-COLA ENTERPRISE, INC.; BCI Coca-cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles;
BCI Coca-cola Bottling co.; and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Defendants., 2011 WL 9190562, *1 (Trial
Pleading) (C.D.Cal. Oct 11, 2011) Defendant's Notice of Removal to Federal Court (NO.
CV1108385SVWVBKX) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
336Nancy McKAIG, an individual, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
a Delaware Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Respondents., 2011 WL 7939785, *1+
(Trial Pleading) (C.D.Cal. Jun 21, 2011) Respondent American Security Insurance Company's
Notice of Removal (NO. CV11-05187R(VBKX)) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
337Kristin B. LOCKHART, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
NORDSTROM, INC. dba Nordstrom Rack and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant., 2010 WL
4823026, *4823026 (Trial Pleading) (E.D.Cal. Nov 22, 2010) Notice to Federal Court of Removal
of Civil Action from State Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(D), 1441 and 1446 (NO.
210CV03148) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
338Gino MARAVENTANO, Plaintiff, v. NORDSTROM, INC., a Washington Corporation; and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant., 2010 WL 5520360, *5520360 (Trial Pleading) (S.D.Cal. Dec 28,
2010) Notice to Federal Court of Removal of Civil Action from State Court Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sections 1332(D), 1441 and 1446 (NO. 10CV2671) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
339Jose Delio BACALSKI, individually, and on behalf of other members of the public similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MC COMMUNICATION, INC. and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants., 2010 WL
4235498, *4235498 (Trial Pleading) (S.D.Cal. Oct 19, 2010) Defendant's Notice of Removal to
Federal Court (NO. 10CV2173JMAJB) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
340Ghislaine PAUL, Plaintiffs, v. Noubar A. DIDIZIAN, Defendants., 2012 WL 4926235, *1 (Trial
Pleading) (D.D.C. Jul 20, 2012) Complaint (NO. 1:12-CV-01196)
341Kathryn KEABLES and Larry Keables, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC.,
Defendant., 2012 WL 3042671, *1 (Trial Pleading) (M.D.Fla. Jul 12, 2012) Defendant Merck
Sharp & Dohme Corp.'s Notice of Removal (NO. 5:12CV00389) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
342Esther PARKER, Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC., Defendant., 2012 WL 2792842, *1 (Trial
Pleading) (M.D.Fla. Jul 02, 2012) Defendant Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.'s Notice of Removal
(NO. 2:12CV00351) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
343Edwin ALRED, Plaintiff, v. YUM BRANDS! d/b/a Kentucky Fried Chicken and John Doe,
Defendants., 2012 WL 5220229, *1 (Trial Pleading) (M.D.Fla. Jun 01, 2012) Notice of Removal
(NO. 612CV832ORL18GJK)
344Reenee FEINGOLD and Laurence Feingold, Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC., and Merck Sharp &
Dohme Corp. Defendants., 2012 WL 3028965, *1 (Trial Pleading) (S.D.Fla. Jul 17, 2012) Defendant
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.'s Notice of Removal (NO. 1:12CV22617) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
345Pamela PARALIKIS, Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC., Defendant., 2012 WL 2936635, *1 (Trial
Pleading) (S.D.Fla. Jul 10, 2012) Defendant Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.'s Notice of Removal
(NO. 2:12CV14256) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
346Abby G. TRENT, Plaintiff, v. SAM'S CLUB, A.K.A. Wal-Mart Inc. A.K.A., Sam's West, Inc.,
Defendant., 2012 WL 5213458, *1 (Trial Pleading) (S.D.Fla. Jun 08, 2012) Notice of Removal (NO.
0:12CV61146)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

347Martha HASLAM and William L. Haslam, her husband, Plaintiffs, v. MERCK SHARP & DOHME
CORP., f/k/a Merck & Co., Inc., Glaxosmithkline, LLC, Roche Laboratories, Inc., Hoffman La
Roche, and Apotex Corporation, Defendants., 2012 WL 1834737, *1 (Trial Pleading) (S.D.Fla. May
16, 2012) Defendant Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.'s Notice of Removal (NO. 0:12CV60918)
HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
348Marcathure BONHOMME, Plaintiff, v. KFC US PROPERTIES, INC., Defendant., 2012 WL
5211849, *1 (Trial Pleading) (S.D.Fla. May 10, 2012) Notice of Removal (NO. 0:12CV60880)
349Jerry GROGAN and Lindsay Grogan, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. CTS PROPERTIES, LTD., a Texas
Limited Partnership, sole General Partner of CTS Management, LLC, a Texas Limited Partnership,
and Roberto Vera, Defendants., 2011 WL 9201680, *1 (Trial Pleading) (S.D.Fla. Jul 01, 2011)
Notice of Removal (NO. 9:11CV80760)
350Jeremy CIOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PALM INC.,
Defendants., 2010 WL 3300936, *3300936 (Trial Pleading) (N.D.Ill. Aug 09, 2010) Defendant
Palm Inc.'s Notice of Removal and Removal of Action under 28 U.S.C. || 1332(d), 1441(b) &
1446 (Diversity) (NO. 10CV04994) HN: 9 (S.Ct.)
351Jincy ENDSLEY, Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC., Defendants., 2012 WL 3562906, *1 (Trial
Pleading) (W.D.La. Aug 13, 2012) Notice of Removal of Defendant Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp
(NO. 5:12CV02161) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
352Kathleen TOLAND, Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC a/k/a Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants., 2012 WL 4936234, *1
(Trial Pleading) (D.Mass. Jun 21, 2012) Notice of Removal (NO. 1:12CV11108) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
353Paula R. COURVILLE, Plaintiff, v. MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., Defendant., 2012 WL
4847780, *1 (Trial Pleading) (D.Mass. Feb 28, 2012) Defendant Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.'s
Notice of Removal (NO. 1:12CV10366) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
354Barbara BENFIELD, Plaintiff, v. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., Depuy International Limited,
Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited, Johnson & Johnson Management Limited, Johnson & Johnson
International, Johnson & Johnson, and Chesapeake Surgigal, Ltd, Defendants., 2012 WL 2092105, *1
(Trial Pleading) (D.Md. May 30, 2012) Removed Forom the Circuit Court for Prince George's
County, Maryland (NO. 8:12CV01601) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
355Kimberly I. ROSSUM and Randy Rossum, Plaintiffs, v. I-FLOW CORPORATION; Kimberly Clark
Corporation; Smith & Nephew, Inc.; Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Astrazeneca LP; Zeneca
Holdings, Inc.; App Pharmaceuticals Inc.; APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Abraxis Bioscience, Inc.;
Abraxis Bioscience, LLC; Hospira, Inc.; Abbott Laboratories, Inc d/b/a AP Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
and d/b/a Abbott Sales, Marketing & Distribution Company, Defendants., 2009 WL 6310185,
*6310185 (Trial Pleading) (D.Minn. Dec 28, 2009) Notice of Removal (NO. 009CV03714) "
HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
356Reenee FEINGOLD and Laurence Feingold, Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC., and Merck Sharp &
Dohme Corp., Defendants., 2012 WL 3428081, *1 (Trial Pleading) (D.N.J. Jul 17, 2012) Defendant
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.'s Notice of Removal (NO. 3:12CV04941) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
357Pamela PARALIKIS, Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC., Defendant., 2012 WL 3204508, *1 (Trial
Pleading) (D.N.J. Jul 10, 2012) Defendant Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.'s Notice of Removal
(NO. 3:12CV04656) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
358Kathleen TOLAND, Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC a/k/a Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants., 2012 WL 4931893, *1
(Trial Pleading) (D.N.J. Jun 21, 2012) Notice of Removal (NO. 3:12CV04190) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
359George A. STRASSLE and Timothy S. Carroll, Plaintiffs, v. BIMBO FOODS BAKERIES
DISTRIBUTION, INC., Defendants., 2012 WL 2170174, *1 (Trial Pleading) (D.N.J. Jun 01, 2012)
Notice of Removal (NO. 1:12CV03313)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

360Martha HASLAM and William L. Haslam, her husband, Plaintiffs, v. MERCK SHARP & DOHME
CORP., f/k/a Merck & Co., Inc., Glaxosmithkline, LLC, Roche Laboratories, Inc., Hoffman La
Roche, and Apotex Corporation, Defendants., 2012 WL 3581911, *1 (Trial Pleading) (D.N.J. May
16, 2012) Defendant Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.'s Notice of Removal (NO. 3:12CV05018)
HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
361Lindsay LOHAN, Plaintiff, v. Armando Christian PEREZ a/k/a Pitbull, Shaffer Chimere Smith, Jr.,
a/k/a Ne-Yo, Nick Van De Wall a/k/a Afrojack, J records, Sony Music Entertainment, Sony Music
Holdings Inc. Rca Music Group, Polo Grounds Music, Polo Grounds Music Publishing Inc., Polo
Grounds Music, Inc., Mr. 305, Inc., Mr. 305 Enterprise, Inc., and Joe John and Jane John, 1 through
X, Defendants., 2011 WL 5263445, *1 (Trial Pleading) (E.D.N.Y. Nov 04, 2011) Notice of Removal
(NO. CV11-5413)
362Lindsay LOHAN, Plaintiff, v. ARMANDO CHRISTIAN PEREZ a/k/a PITBULL, Shaffer Chimere
Smith, Jr., a/k/a Ne-Yo Nick Van De Wall a/k/a Afrojack, J Records, Sony Music Entertainment,
Sony Music Holdings Inc., Rca Music Group, Polo Grounds Music, Polo Grounds Music Publishing,
Inc., Polo Grounds Music, Inc., Mr. 305, Inc., Mr. 305 Enterprise, Inc., and Joe John and Jane John, 1
Through X, Defendants., 2011 WL 9287749, *1 (Trial Pleading) (E.D.N.Y. Nov 04, 2011) Notice of
Removal (NO. CV11-5413)
363Kathryn KEABLES and Larry Keables, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC.,
Defendant., 2012 WL 4793336, *1 (Trial Pleading) (S.D.N.Y. Jul 12, 2012) Defendant Merck
Sharp & Dohme Corp.'s Notice of Removal (NO. 1:12CV07413) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
364Norma W. WILDE and Paul Wilde, her husband, Plaintiffs, v. MERCK AND CO, INC., Defendant.,
2012 WL 1931924, *1 (Trial Pleading) (S.D.N.Y. May 04, 2012) Removed from the Court of
Common Pleas of Fayette County, Pennsylvania (NO. 12CV03953) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
365Ursula TYLER, Bonnie Boerste, Robert Burns, Una Byrne, Virginia Caldwell, Sigrid Charles, Okcha
Cho, Lois A. Clifton, Arlene Cobb, Carolee Corley, Pamela Dee Elliott, Teresa N. Etherton, Patricia
A. Finnerty, Carolyn T. Fletcher (deceased), Aspasia Germanakos, Doris M. Hanke, Charles E.
Heiney, Myrtle A. Helfers, Patricia A. Howard, LaVerne B. Johnson, Kathleen Kingston-Mitchell,
Ph.D., Carol Laine, Helen McGee, Jeanne Morang, Anthonia Ryan, Judy Semenchuk, Connie, 2011
WL 9348698, *1 (Trial Pleading) (S.D.N.Y. Nov 21, 2011) Defendant Merck Sharp & Dohme
Corp.'s Notice of Removal (NO. 11CV09000) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
366Stephen BERNDT, Plaintiff, v. DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP and, Deloitte LLP, Defendants., 2012
WL 5211170, *1 (Trial Pleading) (E.D.Pa. Apr 20, 2012) Notice of Removal (NO. 5:12CV02157)

367Nariman ALI and Mohamed Ali, Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendant., 2003 WL
23639185, *23639185+ (Trial Pleading) (E.D.Pa. 2003) Home Depot's Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand (NO. 03-2787) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
368Norma W. WILDE and Paul Wilde, her husband, Plaintiffs, v. MERCK AND CO, INC., Defendant.,
2012 WL 1689070, *1 (Trial Pleading) (W.D.Pa. May 04, 2012) Defendant Merck Sharp &
Dohme Corp.'s Notice of Removal (NO. 2:12CV00594) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
369Anne M. HEALY-LIMING, Plaintiff, v. SPX FLOW TECHNOLOGY a/k/a Spx Process Equipment
a subsidiary of Spx Corporation, Defendant., 2011 WL 9191287, *1 (Trial Pleading) (S.D.Tex. Aug
26, 2011) Defendant's Notice of Removal (NO. 4:11-CV-03147) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
370Charles R. LAIN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent., 2010
WL 3317497, *3317497 (Trial Pleading) (U.S.Tax Ct. Aug 06, 2010) Petition (NO. 17840-10)
371Douglas R. CATON, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.,
2010 WL 806233, *806233 (Trial Pleading) (U.S.Tax Ct. 2010) Petition (NO. 5071-10)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

Trial Motions, Memoranda and Affidavits
372EVERGREEN FOREST PRODUCTS OF GEORGIA, LLC, Lanier J. Edwards and Charles H.
Thomas, Jr., Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant., 2003 WL 24075077, *24075077
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Ala. Feb 26, 2003) Bank of America, N.A's
Response to Show Cause Order and Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand (NO. 03-A-10-N)
373LITTLE ISLE IV, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; ULA Makika, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; and Philip Kenner, Plaintiffs, v. Kenneth A. JOWDY, et al.,
Defendants., 2009 WL 4823556, *4823556 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Ariz. Sep
21, 2009) Defendant's Opposition to Motion to Quash Subpoena to American Express (NO.
209CV00142) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
374LITTLE ISLE IV, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Ula Makika, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; and Philip Kenner, Plaintiffs, v. Kenneth A. JOWDY, et al.,
Defendants., 2009 WL 2968792, *2968792+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Ariz.
Jun 11, 2009) Defendant's Opposition to Motion to Remand (NO. CV2009-00142-PHX-SRB) "
HN: 8,15 (S.Ct.)
375Chris SILVA, Plaintiff, v. FLETCHER ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company and Brg Investments, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Moez Kaba; Alphonse
"Buddy" Fletcher, Jr. and Does 1-100, Defendants., 2012 WL 2359592, *1+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (C.D.Cal. Apr 30, 2012) Defendants Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
to Remand (NO. 12CV02427) " HN: 5,14 (S.Ct.)
376Reynaldo OROZCO, Plaintiff, v. AUTOZONE WEST, INC.; Autozone, Inc.; Abraham Doe; and
Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants., 2010 WL 2936137, *2936137+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (C.D.Cal. May 24, 2010) Defendants' Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (NO. 510-CV-00594-VAP, VBKX)
HN: 8,9 (S.Ct.)
377Shyh-Yih HAO, Plaintiff, v. Wu-Fu CHEN, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants., 2011 WL
1036425, *1036425+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. Jan 27, 2011)
Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint or, in the
Alternative, to Abstain (NO. C10-00826LHK, HRL) HN: 5,10 (S.Ct.)
378Violet BLUE, an Individual, Plaintiff and Counter-defendant, v. Ada Mae JOHNSON a/k/a ADA
Woffinden, an individual d/b/a Violet Blue a/k/a Violet a/k/a Violet Lust; et al., Defendants and
Counter-claimants., 2008 WL 2000328, *2000328 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(N.D.Cal. Apr 25, 2008) Plaintiff Violet Blue's Reply in Support of Her Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (NO. C07-5370SI) " HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
379Joshua E. MURRAY, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P., Astrazeneca,
L.P., Eli Lilly and Company, Johnson & Johnson Company, and Janssen Pharmaceutica Products,
L.P. A/K/A Janssen, L.P., A/K/A Janssen Pharmaceutica, L.P., A/K/A Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.,
Defendants., 2006 WL 2187011, *2187011 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal.
Jun 27, 2006) Defendants Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and Astrazeneca LP's Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 306-CV-01306-MMC)
380Todd FLETCHER, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P., AstraZeneca, L.P.,
and Eli Lilly and Company, Defendants., 2006 WL 1786836, *1786836 (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. May 19, 2006) Defendants AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and
AstraZeneca LP's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 306-
CV-00579-JSW)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

381Ramon FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P., AstraZeneca,
L.P., and Eli Lilly and Company, Defendants., 2006 WL 1786837, *1786837 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. May 19, 2006) Defendants AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
LP and AstraZeneca LP's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction
(NO. 306-CV-00601-JSW)
382Debra GAINES, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P., AstraZeneca, L.P., and
Eli Lilly and Company, Defendants., 2006 WL 1786838, *1786838 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. May 19, 2006) Defendants AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and
AstraZeneca LP's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 406-
CV-00612-CW)
383Anthony TURANO, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P., AstraZeneca, L.P.,
Johnson & Johnson Company, and Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P. a/k/a Janssen, L.P., a/k/a
Janssen Pharmaceutica, L.P., a/k/a Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., Defendants., 2006 WL 1786843,
*1786843 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. May 19, 2006) Defendants
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca LP's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Federal
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 306-CV-00674-WHA)
384Brandon HITE, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P., AstraZeneca, L.P.,
Johnson & Johnson Company, and Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P. a/k/a Janssen, L.P., a/k/a
Janssen Pharmaceutica, L.P., a/k/a Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., Defendants., 2006 WL 1786848,
*1786848 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. May 19, 2006) Defendants
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca LP's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Federal
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 306-CV-00682-MMC)
385Carla SANTIAGO, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P., Astrazeneca, L.P.,
and Eli Lilly and Company, Defendants., 2006 WL 1786877, *1786877 (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. May 19, 2006) Defendants Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and
Astrazeneca LP's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 306-
CV-01286-JSW)
386Lori KLUSKA, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P., Astrazeneca, L.P., and
Eli Lilly and Company, Defendants., 2006 WL 1786879, *1786879 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. May 19, 2006) Defendants Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and
Astrazeneca LP's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 306-
CV-01317-PJH)
387Denise L. GRUBB, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P., Astrazeneca, L.P.,
and Eli Lilly and Company, Defendants., 2006 WL 1786882, *1786882 (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. May 19, 2006) Defendants Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and
Astrazeneca LP's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 306-
CV-01336-PJH)
388Jacqueline BODINE and Harry Bodine, Plaintiffs, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS,
L.P., AstraZeneca, L.P., and Eli Lilly and Company, Defendants., 2006 WL 1786892, *1786892
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. May 19, 2006) Defendants AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca LP's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Federal Subject
Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 306-CV-01395-MEJ)
389Kevin HAYES, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P., Astrazeneca, L.P., and
Eli Lilly and Company, Defendants., 2006 WL 1786893, *1786893 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. May 19, 2006) Defendants Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and
Astrazeneca LP's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 306-
CV-01438-JSW)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

390Frederick D. GREEN, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P., Astrazeneca,
L.P., and Eli Lilly and Company, Defendants., 2006 WL 1786898, *1786898 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. May 19, 2006) Defendants Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals
LP and Astrazeneca LP's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction
(NO. 306-CV-01545-JCS)
391Gail MCCAUGHREAN, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P., Astrazeneca,
L.P., Eli Lilly and Company, Johnson & Johnson Company, and Janssen Pharmaceutica Products,
L.P. a/k/a Janssen, L.P., a/k/a Janssen Pharmaceutica, L.P., a/k/a Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.,
Defendants., 2006 WL 1786899, *1786899 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal.
May 19, 2006) Defendants AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca LP's Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 306-CV-01558-MMC)
392Leslie A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P., Astrazeneca,
L.P., Johnson & Johnson Company, and Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P. a/k/a Janssen, L.P.,
a/k/a Janssen Pharmaceutica, L.P., a/k/a Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., Defendants., 2006 WL
1786920, *1786920 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. May 19, 2006)
Defendants Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and Astrazeneca LP's Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 306-CV-01769-JSW)
393Joan E. HASTY, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P. and Astrazeneca, L.P.,
Defendants., 2006 WL 1786921, *1786921 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal.
May 19, 2006) Defendants Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and Astrazeneca LP's Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 306-CV-01776-JSW)
394Barbara J. MAGAN, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P., Astrazeneca, L.P.,
Johnson & Johnson Company, and Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P. a/k/a Janssen, L.P., a/k/a
Janssen Pharmaceutica, L.P., a/k/a Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., Defendants., 2006 WL 1786922,
*1786922 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. May 19, 2006) Defendants
Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and Astrazeneca LP's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Federal
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 406-CV-01779-CW)
395James E. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P., Astrazeneca, L.P.,
Eli Lilly and Company, Johnson & Johnson Company, and Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P.
a/k/a Janssen, L.P., a/k/a Janssen Pharmaceutica, L.P., a/k/a Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.,
Defendants., 2006 WL 1786926, *1786926 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal.
May 19, 2006) Defendants Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and Astrazeneca LP's Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 306-CV-01858-MMC)
396Regina GOLDEN, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P., AstraZeneca, L.P.,
Johnson & Johnson Company, and Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P. a/k/a Janssen, L.P., a/k/a
Janssen Pharmaceutica, L.P., a/k/a Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., Defendants., 2006 WL 1786955,
*1786955 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. May 19, 2006) Defendants
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca LP's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Federal
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 306-CV-02039-EDL)
397James YOURKONIS, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P., AstraZeneca,
L.P., Defendants., 2006 WL 1786982, *1786982 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(N.D.Cal. May 19, 2006) Defendants AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca LP's
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 306-CV-02906-WHA)

398Thomas F. URBAN, II, Plaintiff, v. James F. HUMPHREYS; Cindy J. Kiblinger; and James F.
Humphreys & Associates, L.C., Defendants., 2007 WL 4460110, *4460110 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.D.C. Aug 27, 2007) Defendants' Response in Opposition to
Motion to Remand (NO. 107-CV-01367)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

399Thomas F. URBAN II, Plaintiff, v. James F. HUMPHREYS, et al., Defendants., 2007 WL 4460111,
*4460111+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.D.C. Aug 14, 2007) Motion to Remand
or, in the Alternative, Request for Discovery Schedule on Issue of Removability (NO. 107-CV-
01367)
400Steve PALMER, an individual; F1 Investments Inc, a corporation organized under the laws of
Panama, Plaintiffs, v. Ingrid LOITEN, an individual; and May Daisy Corporation, a corporation
organized under the laws of Grand Cayman, Defendants., 2010 WL 2727510, *2727510 (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Fla. Jun 14, 2010) Response to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Dated June 4, 2010 and Memorandum of Law (NO. 608-CV-1040-ORL-22GJ)
401Steve PALMER, an individual; F1 Investments Inc, a corporation organized under the laws of
Panama., Plaintiffs, v. Ingrid LOITEN, an individual; and May Daisy Corporation, a corporation
organized under the laws of Grand Cayman;, Defendants;, I TRADE FX, LLC a Florida Limited
Liability Company holding for the account of May Daisy Corporation and Ingrid Loiten; and
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas a New York state chartered bank that is a member of the
Federal, 2008 WL 3981736, *3981736 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Fla. Jul 11,
2008) Response to Court's Sua Sponte Order Dated July 1, 2007 and Memorandum of Law
(NO. 608CV01040)
402Josefina ABELLA and George Abella, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHLAND SUITES, INC., Mark O'Steen,
Lacinda O'Steen, Alfred DiPierro and Age Well Connections Properties, Inc., Defendants., 2004 WL
2179866, *2179866 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Fla. Mar 19, 2004)
Defendants' Memorandum of Law Regarding Jurisdiction (NO. 302-CV-1014-J-32MMH)
403Denise CUMMINGS, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Scott P. Cummings,
Deceased, and John Cummings, individually, Plaintiffs, v. James Jason FRATESI and Rocky Fratesi,
Defendants., 2003 WL 23773324, *23773324 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Fla.
Nov 24, 2003) Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law (NO. 803-CV-2212-T-23MSS)
404In re: Arlin L. YOUNG and Betty L. Young, Debtors. Arlin L. Young and Betty L. Young,
Appellants, v. Thomas S. Heidkamp, Trustee, Appellee., 2003 WL 23804101, *23804101 (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Fla. Apr 22, 2003) Memorandum (NO. 202-CV-176-
FTM-29DNF)
405In Re: Susan D. WHITEHEAD, Debtors. Thomas S. Heidkamp, Trustee, Appellant, v. Susan D.
Whitehead, Appellee., 2002 WL 32660256, *32660256+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(M.D.Fla. Jul 10, 2002) Initial Brief of Appellant (NO. 202-CV-207-FTM-29DNF)
406In the Matter of: Arlin L. YOUNG and Betty L. Young, Debtors/Appellants., 2002 WL 32660492,
*32660492+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Fla. Jun 06, 2002) Reply Brief of
Arlin L. Young and Betty L. Young, Appellants (NO. 202-CV-176-FTM-29DNF)
407NOVENTA OCHO, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, v. PBD PROPERTIES,
LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and William E. Pitts, Defendants., 2007 WL 4671216,
*4671216 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Fla. Nov 06, 2007) Motion to Remand
and Memorandum of Law in Support (NO. 307CV453/RV/EMT)
408In re: CHECKING ACCOUNT OVERDRAFT LITIGATION, MDL No. 2036. This Document
Relates to: Fifth Tranche Action, Stillion, et al. v. United Bank, Inc. and United Bankshares, Inc.,
S.D. Fla. Case No. 11-cv-21472-JLK, S.D. W. Va. Case No. 11-cv-0237., 2012 WL 993286, *1
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Jan 11, 2012) Reply Brief of United Bank,
Inc. and United Bankshares, Inc. in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (NO. 09MD02036, MDL-2036.) "
HN: 8 (S.Ct.)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

409INVESTORS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WATERPROOFING
SYSTEMS, INC., Waterproofing Systems of Miami, Inc., Bernabe Ignacio Pena, Richard Rothal,
Arvida/Jmb Partners, L.P., Arvida/Jmb Managers, Inc., Arvida Contractors Limited Partnership, and
Arvida Contractors, Inc., Defendants., 2011 WL 8189665, *1 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Oct 20, 2011) Arvida's Reply in Support of Motion Todismiss Amended
Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 0:11-CV-61408-DMM) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
410In Re: CHECKING ACCOUNT OVERDRAFT LITIGATION., 2011 WL 1324755, *1 (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Mar 14, 2011) Reply in Support of Associated
Bank's Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss (NO. 09MD02036) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
411Richard RAGALI, Individually, and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Joseph R. Ragali, a minor,
and Joshua S. Ragali, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. CIRCLE K STORES, INC., Shell Oil Company, Shell
Oil Products Company, LLC, Motiva Enterprises, LLC, and David C. Sanchez, Defendants., 2010
WL 2968147, *2968147 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. May 17, 2010)
Certain Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (NO. 10-80455-CIV-DIMITRO)

412NEPTUNE SOCIETY, INC., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Jerry NORMAN, individually,

Charles Pennington, individually, Deborah Treen, individually, and Smart Cremation, LLC, a
Delaware Limited liability company, Defendants., 2009 WL 3488747, *3488747+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Feb 09, 2009) Neptune Society, Inc.'s Reply to Defendant
Smart Cremation, Llc's Response in Opposition to Plaitiff's Motion for Remand and
Supplement (NO. 009CV60114) HN: 14,16 (S.Ct.)
413Julio de La SANCHA, Plaintiff, v. TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant., 2008 WL
5589284, *5589284 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Nov 26, 2008) Defendant,
Taco Bell of America, Inc.'s Memorandum of Law in Support of Federal Court Subject Matter
Jurisdiction (NO. 08CV81325)
414Victor ALFIE, an individual, and Clotilde Beatriz Deli De Alfie, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. Miguel
ALFIE, an individual, Rebeca Alfie, an individual, and Duran Rubero Beauty Center, Inc. d/b/a The
Praxis Institute, a Florida corporation, Defendants., 2007 WL 1572700, *1572700 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Apr 16, 2007) Defendants' Response in Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and Supporting Memorandum of Law (NO. 07-20508-CIV-
UNGARO/)
415Ivan QI, Plaintiff, v. STARCAPITAL CORP., Defendant., 2006 WL 2305898, *2305898+ (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Jul 10, 2006) Defendant Starcapital Corp.'s Reply
to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (NO. 06-80404-
CIV-MIDDLEB)
416Phillip Minor FULCHER and Angela Erck Fulcher, Debtors/Appellants, v. LES OSBORNE,
TRUSTEE, Trustee/Appellee., 2004 WL 2874217, *2874217+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Jun 28, 2004) Initial Brief of Appellee (NO. 04-60419CV-JEM)
417Gerard RENNY, Plaintiff, v. SPANE, INC., formerly Bbgf Luke Corp., Robert Stecher and Frank M.
Graziadei, Defendants., 2002 WL 32671555, *32671555 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(S.D.Fla. Feb 27, 2002) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Diversity Jurisdiction and Memorandum
of Law in Support (NO. 02-20249-CIV-HUCK)
418In re: FRANK ROMANO and Maria Romano, Debtors, Frank Romano and Maria Romano,
Plaintiffs, v. Rudolph La Vecchia and Rudolph M. La Vecchia, Defendants. Frank Romano and
Maria Romano, Ganrishors/Appellants, v. Appellee Amanda La Vecchia, Ganrishee/Appellee., 2000
WL 34463047, *34463047+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Jul 12, 2000)
Brief of Appellee, Appellee Amanda Lavecchia (NO. 00-6848-CIV-HURLEY/L)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

419In Re: TEXT MESSAGING ANTITRUST LITIGATION., 2010 WL 3355355, *3355355 (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Ill. Aug 06, 2010) (Redacted) Brief in Support of
Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Remand (NO. 08CV07082) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
420Jacqueline TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. d/b/a Dollar Tree Stores,
Defendant., 2007 WL 2271245, *2271245 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Ill. Jun
14, 2007) Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Rule 59(E) Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment (NO. 07C2210)
421Michael B. CONSTANCE, Plaintiff, v. Edward F. BRENNAN, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, v.
James S. Connors, Third-Party Defendant., 2010 WL 4524707, *4524707 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ill. Sep 13, 2010) Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff's Response
to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, and Supporting Memorandum (NO. 310-CV-00460-GPM-
PMF) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
422CONSECO SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Ngaire E. CUNEO et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 2772934,
*2772934+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ind. Jun 28, 2004) Memorandum in
Support of Conseco Services' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (NO. 104-CV-0929-DFH-
WTL)
423Gary LONG, v. AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY., 2009 WL 1235932,
*1235932 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.La. Feb 17, 2009) Memorandum
Regarding Jurisdiction and Indispensible Parties of American Security Insurance Company
(NO. 207CV09812) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
424George J. ACKEL, Jr., v. DARLENE PARENT ACKEL., 2008 WL 368058, *368058+ (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.La. Jan 08, 2008) Memorandum in Support of Motion
to Dismiss (NO. 07-551)
425Cheryl WEEMS, Individually and on Behalf of Her Deceased Mother, Veola Mosby, and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, v. TOURO INFIRMARY and Shono, Inc. d/b/a Specialty Hospital
of New Orleans., 2006 WL 5156331, *5156331 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.La.
Dec 11, 2006) Touro Infirmary's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Remand
(NO. 06-5460)
426Ted SATOR, v. NEW ORLEANS BRASS, L.L.C., 2003 WL 23895495, *23895495+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.La. Feb 04, 2003) Defendant's Reply Memorandum (NO. 02-
3524)
427Philip R. THOMAS and Wayne Heirtzler Thomas, v. THOMAS GROUP, INC., 1998 WL 34366352,
*34366352+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.La. Nov 08, 1998) Reply
Memorandum to Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Remand (NO. 98-608-
A-M1)
428CQ INTERNATIONAL CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. ROCHEM INTERNATIONAL, INC., USA., 2009
WL 6040615, *6040615 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. Dec 23, 2009) CQ
International Co., Inc.'s Reply Brief in Support of its Opposition to Rochem International, Inc.,
Usa's Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 108CV10142) " HN: 13 (S.Ct.)
429Stephen B. EIGLES, Plaintiff, v. Jong K. KIM, et al., Defendants., 2010 WL 4062430, *4062430
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Md. Jun 21, 2010) Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of the Kim Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to the Kim
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (NO. AMD-07-CV-2223) " HN: 13
(S.Ct.)
430Iola HALL, Plaintiff, v. Ralph MABRY, et al., Defendants., 2006 WL 655113, *655113+ (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Md. Feb 07, 2006) Reply to Opposition to Plaintiff's
Motion to Set Case in for Hearing on Damages and Memorandum in Support Thereof (NO.
PJM02CV2710)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

431Julie Ann ROEHM, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant., 2007 WL 1932415,
*1932415+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.Mich. May 17, 2007) Brief in
Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (NO. 207-CV-10168)
432Teng MOUA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JANI-KING OF MINNESOTA, INC., et al., Defendants., 2008 WL
6601521, *6601521 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Minn. Oct 10, 2008) Plaintiffs'
Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Remand to State Court (NO. 08-CV-
4942ADM/JSM)
433Ronald A. SCHIAVONE, et al., Plaintiff, v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, Defendant., 2009 WL
3071173, *3071173+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.N.J. May 18, 2009)
Memorandum of Law of Plaintiff in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint
(NO. 08-CIV-1157, SDW) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
434Ronald A. SCHIAVONE, individually and as Trustee of the Ronald A. Schiavone Living Trust,
Plaintiff, v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, Defendant., 2009 WL 1473009, *1473009+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.N.J. Apr 13, 2009) Brief in Support of Motion By Defendant
Raymond J. Donovan to Dismiss the Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (NO. 208CV01157) HN: 16 (S.Ct.)
435Joseph FALTAOUS on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Johnson and
Johnson, and ABC Corporations 1 through 100 (fictitious names), Defendants., 2007 WL 4673863,
*4673863+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.N.J. May 25, 2007) Brief in Opposition
to Motion to Remand (NO. 07-1572, JLL)
436Andrea SORRENTINO, D'Angelo and Patricia Jackson, Louis Apa, Steven Andelman, Peedo and
Saifon Pituk, Manny Delmas and Barbara Lindon, Chandeep Sodhi, Jaspreet Sodhi, Jaclyn Tesoriero,
Kimberly Cilone, Marie Varallo, and Hsiangchi Hsu, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ASN ROOSEVELT CENTER, LLC d/b/a Archstone
Westbury, Archstone Smith Communities LLC, Archstone Smith Operating Trust, John Doe, 2008
WL 2318904, *2318904 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.N.Y. Apr 01, 2008)
Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Further Support of their Motion for Remand to State Court (NO.
208CV00550) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
437Bettina M. WHYTE, as Trustee of the SemGroup Litigation Trust, Trustee, v. BARCLAYS BANK
PLC and Barclays Capital Inc., Defendants., 2012 WL 4767000, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) (S.D.N.Y. Sep 21, 2012) Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (NO. 12-CIV-5318 (JSR))
438Bettina M. WHYTE, as Trustee of the SemGroup Litigation Trust, Plaintiff, v. BARCLAYS BANK
PLC and Barclays Capital, Inc., Defendants., 2012 WL 4766996, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) (S.D.N.Y. Sep 14, 2012) Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (NO. 12 CIV 5318 (JSR)) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
439John GILBERT, Plaintiff, v. Robert INDIANA, Defendant., 2011 WL 8197646, *1+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.N.Y. Dec 19, 2011) Memorandum of Law in Support of
Defendant Robert Indiana's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 09 CIV. 6352 (KBF))
440SHAW FAMILY ARCHIVES, LTD., Edith Marcus, and Meta Stevens, Plaintiffs, v. CMG
WORLDWIDE, INC., an Indiana Corporation and Marilyn Monroe, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Defendants., 2008 WL 876913, *876913+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (S.D.N.Y. Mar 27, 2008) Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Their
Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Domicile (NO. 05CV3939, CM) HN: 8,16
(S.Ct.)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

441Magda EISENBERG, Plaintiff(S), v. NEW ENGLAND MOTOR FREIGHT, INC. & Audray
Hemraj., 2008 WL 2295342, *2295342 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.N.Y. Mar
20, 2008) Memorandum in Opposition to Remand (NO. 108CV01469) HN: 9 (S.Ct.)
442Elza E. ALMEIDA, v. Carlos AGUINAGA, and Christina Bueno Aguinaga, Defendants., 2006 WL
3607683, *3607683 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.N.Y. Oct 18, 2006) Plaintiff
Elza E. Almeida's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel
Plaintiff's Deposition (NO. 06CV3923, LLS) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
443Jeffrey B. COHEN, Plaintiff, v. FACT HOLDINGS RESORT, LLC; and Frank Cilione, Defendants,
and Resort of Palm Beach, LLC, Nominal Defendant., 2006 WL 2307204, *2307204 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.N.Y. Jul 13, 2006) Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on the Ground of Absence of Diversity of
Citizenship (NO. 06-CV-01139, RJH)
444Jeffrey B. COHEN, Plaintiff, v. FACT HOLDINGS RESORT, LLC; and Frank Cilione, Defendants,
and, Resort of Palm Beach, LLC, Nominal Defendant., 2006 WL 2307205, *2307205 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.N.Y. Jul 13, 2006) Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on the Ground of Absence of Diversity of
Citizenship (NO. 06-CV-01139, RJH)
445Jacqueline MCCLENDON, Plaintiff, v. CHALLENGE FINANCIAL INVESTORS CORP., et al.,
Defendants., 2008 WL 2912138, *2912138+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Ohio
Jun 12, 2008) Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court (NO.
108CV01189) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
446Tonja V. ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.,
2008 WL 2217979, *2217979+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Ohio Mar 14,
2008) Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court (NO.
108CV00363) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
447Dan E. PERSINGER, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of John Todd Persinger,
Plaintiff, v. EXTENDICARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., and Rocksprings Care, LLC, Defendants.,
2007 WL 4704255, *4704255 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ohio Oct 02, 2007)
Defendants' Reply Brief Supporting Motion to Dismiss (NO. 206CV758)
448Leon KING, Rosanne Declerico, and John Whatley, for themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ARAMARK SPORTS, LLC, Aramark Corporation, John Doe No. 1,
John Doe No. 2, and John Doe No. 3, Defendants., 2010 WL 3231303, *3231303+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.Pa. Jun 05, 2010) Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (NO. 10-2116,
GP) HN: 8,15 (S.Ct.)
449Shawn WARREN and Gloretta Patterson, Plaintiffs, v. Liberty MUTUAL, Defendant., 2008 WL
5343298, *5343298 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.Pa. Sep 02, 2008) Defendant's
Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (NO. 08-CV-3384-RK) HN: 9 (S.Ct.)
450Ted A. MCCRACKEN, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, G. Richard Wagoner,
Jr., Ceo, his predecessor and successor; Fred Bean Chevrolet, John Doe, his predecessor/successor,
Vice President Marketing General Motors Corporation, John Doe I, his prececessor/successor, Vice
President, Engineering, General Motors Corporation, Defendants., 2008 WL 1981834, *1981834
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.Pa. Feb 19, 2008) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for Filing Friviolous Action (NO. 07-CV-02019-ER) HN: 9
(S.Ct.)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

451Shirley SHERIDAN James W. Zimmerman On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
NGK NORTH AMERICA, INC. NGK Insulators, Ltd. NGK Metals Corporation Yasuhito Niwa
Leonard Velky Cabot Corporation Spotts, Stevens & McCoy, Inc., 2007 WL 4776471, *4776471
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.Pa. Jan 17, 2007) Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand
(NO. 206-CV-05510-JKG)
452Kakkadasan SAMPATHACHAR, M.D., Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL KEMPER LIFE, et al., Defendants.,
2004 WL 1494774, *1494774 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.Pa. Apr 19, 2004)
Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (NO. 03-5905)
453Angel ARRIAGA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NEW ENGLAND GAS COMPANY, an Unincorporated
Division of Southern Union Company, Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Jason Smith and
Stephen Carberry, Defendants., 2006 WL 820146, *820146 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (D.R.I. Feb 06, 2006) Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand to the Rhode Island Superior
Court (NO. 06-045T)
454Robin HOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAROLINA
PAYDAY LOANS, INC.; Check Into Cash of South Carolina, Inc.; Check'n Go of South Carolina,
Inc.; and Quick Cash, Inc., Defendants., 2008 WL 893509, *893509 (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) (D.S.C. Feb 11, 2008) Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
and for Attorneys' Fees (NO. 408-CV-00182-TLW-TER) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
455Kimberly KINNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Advance
AMERICA, Cash Advance Centers of South Carolina, Inc.; Carolina Payday Loans, Inc.; Richard
Paul Woodhouse d/b/a Cash Doctor Cash Advance Center; and Title Cash of South Carolina, Inc.
d/b/a/ All American Payday, Defendants., 2007 WL 4913815, *4913815 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.S.C. Dec 20, 2007) Reply Memorandum in Support of Remand
(NO. 407-CV-03532-TLW-TER)
456Kimberly KINNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
ADVANCE AMERICA, Cash Advance Centers of South Carolina, Inc.; Carolina Payday Loans,
Inc.; Richard Paul Woodhouse d/b/a Cash Doctor - Cash Advance Center; and Title Cash of South
Carolina, Inc. d/b/a/ All American Payday, Defendants., 2007 WL 4913807, *4913807 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.S.C. Nov 20, 2007) Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand and for Attorneys' Fees (NO. 407-CV-03532-TLW-TER)
457Margaret HORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCE
AMERICA, Cash Advance Centers of South Carolina, Inc.; Carolina Payday Loans, Inc.; and Check
Into Cash Of South Carolina, Inc., Defendants., 2007 WL 4913996, *4913996 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.S.C. Nov 05, 2007) Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand (NO. 707-CV-03239-TLW-TER)
458Tawan SMALLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCE
AMERICA, Cash Advance Centers of South Carolina, Inc.; Carolina Payday Loans, Inc.; and Check
Into Cash of South Carolina, Inc., Defendants., 2007 WL 4918523, *4918523+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.S.C. Nov 05, 2007) Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand (NO. 207-CV-0324046) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
459Margaret HORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Advance
AMERICA, Cash Advance Centers Of South Carolina, Inc.; Carolina Payday Loans, Inc.; and Check
Into Cash of South Carolina, Inc., Defendants., 2007 WL 4839576, *4839576 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.S.C. Oct 05, 2007) Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion
to Remand and for Attorneys' Fees (NO. 407-CV-3235-TLW)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

460Tawan SMALLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Advance
AMERICA, Cash Advance Centers of South Carolina, Inc.; Carolina Payday Loans, Inc.; and Check
Into Cash of South Carolina, Inc., Defendants., 2007 WL 4839587, *4839587 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.S.C. Oct 05, 2007) Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion
to Remand and for Attorneys Fees (NO. 207-CV-03240-TLW-TER)
461Dan D. MOULDS, Jr. and Crystle M. Moulds, Plaintiffs, v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK
MELLON, the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, National Assocation fka the Bank of New
York Trust Company, N.A. as successor to JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., MCC TN, LLC and GMAC
Mortgage, LLC, Defendants., 2011 WL 5883463, *1 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(E.D.Tenn. Aug 15, 2011) Defendants' Joint Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand (NO.
11CV00200) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
462Winston KU, Plaintiff, v. AUSTIN CONVENTION CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.;
Austin Convention Enterprises, Inc.; Hilton Hotel Corporation; the 5 Fifty Five Condominium
Association, Inc.; Gerard Schneyer, an Individual a/k/a Jerry Schneyer, Defendants., 2010 WL
2006066, *2006066 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Tex. Feb 09, 2010)
Defendants Landmark Organization, Inc., Landmark Organization, LP, Landmark
Constructors, Inc., Faulknerusa, LP, Faulknerusa GP, Inc. and Faulknerusa Acquisitions,
LLC, H.L. Hotels, L.P., Hotel ... (NO. A-09-CA-758-SS) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
463Justin K. LUND, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Gary BRINTON, an individual; Monica Brinton, an
individual; Gilbert & Stewart Certified Public Accountants, a Utah corporation; Gilbert & Stewart
CPA's, L.C., a Utah limited liability company., Defendants., 2012 WL 4740612, *1 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Utah Jul 12, 2012) Combined Memorandum in Opposition to
Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, for Discovery On Jurisdiction
Issues, and for Sanctions (NO. 12CV00494) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
464Michael Lee WIGHT, Plaintiff, v. Carol S. JENSEN Karl b. Jensen, Defendants., 2007 WL 4880347,
*4880347 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Utah Aug 20, 2007) Memorandum of
Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (NO. 207CV00251CV)
465THE UNITED COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey J. KEENAN, Defendant., 2006 WL 5186438,
*5186438+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Va. Aug 14, 2006) Plaintiff's Reply
in Support of Motion to Remand (NO. 106-CV-00071)
466THE UNITED COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey J. KEENAN, Defendant., 2006 WL 5186437,
*5186437+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Va. Jul 31, 2006) Defendant's
Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (NO. 106-CV-00071)
467THE UNITED COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey J. KEENAN, Defendant., 2006 WL 5186436,
*5186436+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Va. Jul 12, 2006) Memorandum of
Law in Support of Motion to Remand (NO. 106-CV-00071)
468Navajo NATION, Plaintiff, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, Plaintiff-
Intervenor, v. James W. NORRIS; Gayle Norris, Defendants., 2000 WL 35303312, *35303312 (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.Wash. May 02, 2000) Plaintiff Navajo Nation's Reply
Brief in Support of Its Summary Judgment Motion on the Issue of Domicile (NO. CY98-3001-
EFS)
469Navajo NATION, Plaintiff, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, Plaintiff-
Intervenor, v. James W. NORRIS; Gayle Norris, Defendants., 2000 WL 35303311, *35303311+
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.Wash. Apr 26, 2000) Plaintiff Navajo Nation's
Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Domicile (NO. CY98-3001-EFS)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 470Navajo NATION, Plaintiff, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, Plaintiff-
Intervenor, v. James W. NORRIS and Gayle Norris, Defendants., 2000 WL 35303305, *35303305+
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.Wash. Apr 03, 2000) The Norris Defendants'
Memorandum of Law Supporting Their Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of
Domicile (NO. CY-98-3001-EFS)
471Bobby BURGESS, Individually, and as the Father and Next Friend of Bobby Burgess, Jr., Plaintiff,
v. ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT CO., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Appalachian Power
Company, a Commonwealth of Virginia Corporation, Defendants., 2006 WL 1498276, *1498276
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.W.Va. Apr 11, 2006) Defendant Asplundh Tree
Expert Co.'s Response to Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Remand (NO. 105-0866)
472Jesus F. TRILLA PINERO d/b/a Puerto Rico Motor Coach, et al. Plaintiff, v. THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al., Defendants., 2008 WL 2975137, *2975137+ (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Puerto Rico Apr 09, 2008) Combined Reply to Shell and
Totals Oppositions to Moton to Remand (Dkt.nos. 16 & 18) (NO. 308CV01293) HN: 8
(S.Ct.)
473Jesus F. TRILLA Pinero d/b/a Puerto Rico Motor Coach, et al., Plaintiff, v. THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al., Defendants., 2008 WL 2975142, *2975142 (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Puerto Rico Mar 17, 2008) Motion to Remand (NO.
308CV01293) HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
474Reem MUSA; Zayed A. Badwan in representation and on behalf of their underage daughter Ayat
Badwan Musa, Plaintiffs, v. SUPERMERCADOS AMIGO INC; ACE Insurance Company; Richard
Roe., 2007 WL 4781633, *4781633 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Puerto Rico Sep
11, 2007) Reply to Plaintiffs'opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (NO. 07-1089, CCC)

475In re, GATTA Robert A Jr., (Debtor)., 2007 WL 5322789, *5322789 (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) (Bankr.D.Mass. Feb 02, 2007) Memorandumof Law in Supporting of Debtors
Motion to Avoid Judical Lien on Residential Realestate (NO. 05-20524) HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
476In re Robert Louis MARRAMA, Debtor., 2004 WL 5621873, *5621873 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (Bankr.D.Mass. Jan 27, 2004) Memorandum of Law in Support of
Debtor's Reply to Objection of Citizens Bank to Certain Exemptions (NO. 103BK11987)
HN: 15 (S.Ct.)
477Ann Lee BUTLER, Debtor., 2004 WL 5620940, *5620940 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (Bankr.E.D.Tex. Feb 18, 2004) Debtor's Trial Brief (NO. 02-44217)
478Morris I. GLETZER a/k/a/ Morris I. Glecer, Plaintiff, v. Amos HARRIS, Defendant., 2005 WL
6460892, *6460892+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.Y.Sup. Feb 15, 2005)
Defendant's Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of his Motion to Reject the
Referee's Report and Recommendation and in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm the
Report (NO. 605036/01)

Trial Filings
479Jeremy CIOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PALM INC.,
Defendant., 2010 WL 4492549, *4492549 (Trial Filing) (N.D.Ill. Sep 24, 2010) Joint Jurisdictional
Status Report (NO. 10-CV-04994) HN: 9 (S.Ct.)

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.