412 F.

2d 16 Page 1
412 F.2d 16
(Cite as: 412 F.2d 16)

[2] Federal Courts 170B 71

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Arthur 170B Federal Courts
RUDICK, Petitioner,      170BII Venue
v.            170BII(A) In General
Melvin LAIRD, Secretary of Defense, and Stanley                170Bk71 k. Territorial Limitations and
Resor, Secretary of the Army, Respondents. Venue in General. Most Cited Cases
No. 533, Docket 33354.      (Formerly 106k268)
“Venue” relates solely to place where jurisdiction
Argued March 13, 1969. should or may be exercised and does not involve
Decided April 23, 1969. power or authority to adjudicate controversy.

The District Court for the Southern District of New [3] Federal Courts 170B 95
York, John M. Cannella, J., denied for lack of
jurisdiction petitioner's application for order to show
170B Federal Courts
cause why he should not be discharged from Army as
     170BII Venue
conscientious objector and petitioner appealed. The
           170BII(A) In General
Court of Appeals, Moore, Circuit Judge, held that
               170Bk95 k. Objections, Waiver and
District Court for Southern District of New York was
Consent. Most Cited Cases
without jurisdiction to entertain habeas corpus
     (Formerly 106k276)
petition by army private, who was on leave at his
Venue, as concept of convenience of parties rather
residence in New York after having left Fort Ord,
than a concept of jurisdiction, may be conferred on a
California with orders to report to Oakland,
court either by consent or by failure of defendant to
California two weeks later and who claimed that he
make timely objection.
was denied due process because there was no basis in
fact for Army's failure to discharge him as
conscientious objector, where neither respondent, [4] Courts 106 37(1)
Secretary of Army, Secretary of Defense, nor any
other official who could be appellant's commanding 106 Courts
officer could be found in Southern District.      106I Nature, Extent, and Exercise of Jurisdiction
in General
Affirmed.            106k37 Waiver of Objections
               106k37(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases
Lack of jurisdiction, unlike venue, is not subject to
West Headnotes
waiver.

[1] Courts 106 1

[5] Judgment 228 15
106 Courts
228 Judgment
     106I Nature, Extent, and Exercise of Jurisdiction
     228I Nature and Essentials in General
in General
           228k15 k. Jurisdiction of Cause of Action.
           106k1 k. Nature and Source of Judicial
Most Cited Cases
Authority. Most Cited Cases
Judgment entered by court without jurisdiction is
“Jurisdiction” is authority to hear and determine a
neither valid nor binding.
cause; it is, in essence, power to adjudicate action; if
court lacks jurisdiction over action, it lacks power to
act with respect thereto. [6] Federal Courts 170B 97

© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

412 F.2d 16 Page 2
412 F.2d 16
(Cite as: 412 F.2d 16)

170B Federal Courts                197III(B)2 Personal Jurisdiction and Venue

     170BII Venue                      197k632 Federal Courts
           170BII(A) In General                          197k633 k. State or Territorial
               170Bk97 k. Determination of Venue Prisoners. Most Cited Cases
Questions. Most Cited Cases      (Formerly 197k48)
     (Formerly 106k277) Except for district court for the district where state
Jurisdiction must first be found over subject matter sentencing court was held, federal district court does
and persons involved in cause before question of not have power to issue writ of habeas corpus unless
venue can be properly reached. person who has custody of petitioner is within reach
of court's process. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241.
[8] Habeas Corpus 197 632.1
[11] Habeas Corpus 197 662.1
197 Habeas Corpus
     197III Jurisdiction, Proceedings, and Relief 197 Habeas Corpus
           197III(B) Jurisdiction and Venue      197III Jurisdiction, Proceedings, and Relief
               197III(B)2 Personal Jurisdiction and Venue            197III(C) Proceedings
                     197k632 Federal Courts                197III(C)1 In General
                         197k632.1 k. In General. Most Cited                      197k662 Parties; Standing
Cases                          197k662.1 k. In General. Most Cited
     (Formerly 197k632, 197k48) Cases
General rule in regard to personal jurisdiction under      (Formerly 197k662, 197k51)
federal habeas corpus statute is that writ may only One held in custody must bring habeas corpus
issue within district where petitioner is “in custody.” petition against proper official. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241.
28 U.S.C.A. § 2241.
[12] Habeas Corpus 197 638
[9] Habeas Corpus 197 632.1
197 Habeas Corpus
197 Habeas Corpus      197III Jurisdiction, Proceedings, and Relief
     197III Jurisdiction, Proceedings, and Relief            197III(B) Jurisdiction and Venue
           197III(B) Jurisdiction and Venue                197III(B)2 Personal Jurisdiction and Venue
               197III(B)2 Personal Jurisdiction and Venue                      197k638 k. Armed Services. Most Cited
                     197k632 Federal Courts Cases
                         197k632.1 k. In General. Most Cited      (Formerly 197k48)
Cases District court for Southern District of New York was
     (Formerly 197k632, 197k48) without jurisdiction to entertain habeas corpus
Phrase “within their respective jurisdictions” as used petition by Army private, who was on leave at his
in federal habeas corpus statute limits power of residence in New York after having left Fort Ord,
district court to hear and determine habeas corpus California with orders to report to Oakland,
petitions to those situations where prisoner is both California two weeks later and who claimed that he
physically present and detained or held in custody was denied due process because there was no basis in
within court's territorial jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.A. § fact for Army's failure to discharge him as
2241. conscientious objector, where neither respondent,
Secretary of Army, Secretary of Defense, nor any
[10] Habeas Corpus 197 633 other official who could be appellant's commanding
officer could be found in Southern District. 28
U.S.C.A. §§ 1391(e), 2241.
197 Habeas Corpus
     197III Jurisdiction, Proceedings, and Relief
           197III(B) Jurisdiction and Venue [13] Habeas Corpus 197 638

© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

412 F.2d 16
412 F.2d 16
(Cite as: 412 F.2d 16)
197 Habeas Corpus
     197III Jurisdiction, Proceedings, and Relief
           197III(B) Jurisdiction and Venue
               197III(B)2 Personal Jurisdiction and Venue
                     197k638 k. Armed Services. Most Cited
Cases
     (Formerly 197k48)
For purpose of habeas corpus jurisdiction it is
doubtful whether soldier who is absent without leave
can be characterized in custody of any officer of
armed forces any more than it can be said that
escaped prisoner is in custody of his jailer. 28
U.S.C.A. §§ 1391(e), 2241.
*18 Leonard B. Boudin, New York City (Rabinowitz,
Boudin & Standard, New York City, on the brief), for
petitioner.
Alan B. Morrison, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City
(Robert M. Morgenthau, U.S. Atty., for Southern
Dist. of New York, New York City, on the brief), for
respondents.
Before MOORE and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges,
and McLEAN,FN1 District judge.
FN1. Of the Southern District of New York,
sitting by designation.
MOORE, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal by Arthur Rudick (appellant) from a
decision of the District Court for the Southern
District of New York, John M. Cannella, Judge,
which effectively dismissed the instant action for lack
of jurisdiction. Rudick, a Private in the Armed Forces
of the United States, seeks the aid of the Federal
Courts in obtaining his discharge on the ground that
he is a conscientious objector. Rather than suing his
commanding officer in California where he is
stationed, appellant has brought suit against the
Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense
in New York. The facts, which we have derived from
the memoranda of law, affidavits and briefs, are set
out below.
Appellant was inducted into the United States Army
on March 27, 1968. At no time prior to his induction
© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 3
had he asserted a claim as a conscientious objector. In
the course of advanced military training, he alleges
that his views on war crystallized and that he became
opposed to all wars. Thereafter, on October 12, 1968,
he sought conscientious objector status and discharge
from the Army.
Pursuant to Army Regulations, appellant was
interviewed by a chaplain, a psychiatrist and a
hearing officer. Appellant alleges that both the
chaplain's report and the hearing officer's report were
deficient and that procedures set up by Army
Regulations for processing in-service conscientious
objectors were not followed. The psychiatrist
reported that he considered appellant normal. The
chaplain, Major Thomas L. Strayhand, stated in his
report that he had counseled appellant ‘concerning
his desire for 1-O classification based upon his
religious beliefs.’He found that appellant's
application for conscientious objector status was not
‘based solely upon religious training and beliefs. He
does believe in self-defense when personally attacked
or his family is being attacked.’
On October 29, 1968 Rudick was given a hearing by
Captain John O'Brien at his base in California. His
own attorney was present at this hearing. In his report
on appellant's application to the Chief of the
Overseas Replacement Station in Oakland,
California, after summarizing the interview and
indicating some of the background information,
Captain O'Brien stated ‘In my opinion Private Rudick
is not sincere and does not have any religious
objection to serving in the military. His beliefs are
merely convenient to his desire to get out of the
Army and not go to Vietnam * * * Therefore, I
recommend that *19 Private Rudick's application for
discharge as a conscientious objector be denied.’
Appellant alleges that he was never formally notified
of this recommendation. He also claims that he was
notified only informally of the fact that his
application for conscientious objector status and for
discharge had subsequently been denied.
On February 22, 1969 Rudick departed on leave from
his duty station at Fort Ord, California with orders to
report to the United States Army Overseas
Replacement Center at Oakland, California on March
412 F.2d 16
412 F.2d 16
(Cite as: 412 F.2d 16)
9, 1969 for assignment to Vietnam. Rudick took his
leave in New York City, which is his residence.
While on leave, on March 4, 1969, appellant sought
relief in the Southern District of New York under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that he was entitled to be
discharged as a conscientious objector under
Department of Defense Directive (DoD) 1300.6 and
Army Regulations (AR) 635-20. He claimed that he
is being denied due process of law because there was
no basis in fact for the Army's failure to discharge
him. He alleges that his beliefs are religious and meet
the tests set forth in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S.
163, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965).
Appellant also contends that the Army failed to
follow its own regulations in processing his
application. He states that the chaplain is required to
submit a report of the interview ‘to include comments
on the sincerity of the applicant in his beliefs and an
opinion as to the source of the beliefs,’ AR 635-20(4)
(c), which the chaplain allegedly failed to do. He also
claims that the hearing officer was not an officer who
was ‘knowledgeable in policies and procedures
relating to conscientious objection matters,’ DoD
1300.6 VI(b)(4), that the application and supporting
papers were not forwarded to Departmental
Headquarters for individual determination, DoD
1300.6 VI(b)(5), and that the file was not forwarded
to the Selective Service Director for an advisory
opinion, DoD 1300.6 VI(b)(6). Because the Army did
not comply with its own regulations, appellant asserts
that he was denied due process of law, citing
Hammond v. Lenfest, 398 F.2d 705 (2d Cir. 1968).
He also claims that he was denied due process
because he was not notified of the recommendations
made by the hearing officer.
As indicated above, appellant commenced suit in the
Southern District of New York where he was on
leave. He claims that, at that time, he was not carried
on the books at either Fort Ord or Oakland. On that
basis he concludes that he had no immediate
commanding officer and that suit against the
Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense
in the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241
and 1391(e) was proper.
The District Court refused to sign an order to show
© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 4
cause, stating on the back of the proposed order that
‘Application for order to show cause is denied. The
Court does not have jurisdiction.Title 28 U.S.C. §
2241. This is not on the merits. The denial is without
prejudice to an application in the proper district.’An
appeal from this denial was taken, but this Court
remanded for a determination whether Judge
Cannella's denial was based on his conclusion that
there was no jurisdiction to issue the order or the
writ. After a brief hearing, Judge Cannella again
refused to sign the order to show cause, stating that
appellant had failed to show that there was
jurisdiction. We treat that refusal as tantamount to
dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction and we
affirm that decision.
Section 2241 of Title 28 provides that ‘Writs of
habeas corpus may be granted by * * * the district
courts within their respective jurisdictions.’This
provision authorizes the district courts, on the proper
application, to inquire whether a petitioner within
their jurisdiction, including a member of the Armed
Forces, is being detained in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States.Hammond
v. Lenfest, supra.*20 The appellant, in support of his
position that there is jurisdiction, cites Section 1391,
which is a venue provision as its title clearly
specifies. That provision provides, in subsection (e),
that ‘A civil action in which each defendant is an
officer of the United States * * * acting in his official
capacity or under color of legal authority * * * may *
* * be brought in any judicial district in which * * *
the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in
the action.’
[1][2][3][4][5][6] Because the appellant seems to
confuse the principles of jurisdiction with those of
venue, at the outset it is necessary to restate the
difference between the two. The concepts of personal
jurisdiction and venue are closely related but
nonetheless distinct. Jurisdiction is the authority to
hear and determine a cause; it is, in essence, the
power to adjudicate the action. Farmers Elevator
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Austad & Sons, Inc., 343 F.2d 7, 11
(8th Cir. 1965). If a court lacks jurisdiction over an
action, it lacks the power to act with respect to that
action. Venue, on the other hand, does not involve the
power or authority to adjudicate a controversy. It
relates solely to the place where jurisdiction should
412 F.2d 16
412 F.2d 16
(Cite as: 412 F.2d 16)
or may be exercised. Olberding v. Illinois Central R.
Co., 346 U.S. 338, 340, 74 S.Ct. 83, 98 L.Ed. 39
(1953). Venue is a forum limitation imposed for the
convenience of the parties. As a concept of
convenience rather than of jurisdiction, it may be
conferred on a court either by consent or by the
failure of the defendant to make a timely objection.
Concession Consultants, Inc. v. Mirisch, 355 F.2d
369 (2d Cir. 1966). In either case, whether it is
conferred by consent or by waiver, the court may
render a valid judgment, whereas lack of jurisdiction
cannot be waived, United States v. Griffin, 303 U.S.
226, 229, 58 S.Ct. 601, 82 L.Ed. 764 (1938), Ahrens
v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188, 193, 68 S.Ct. 1443, 92 L.Ed.
1898 (1948), and a court without jurisdiction is
without power to render a valid or binding judgment.
Thus venue deals with the question of which court, or
courts, of those which possess adequate personal and
subject matter jurisdiction, may hear the specific
matter in question. In short, jurisdiction must first be
found over the subject matter and the persons
involved in the cause before the question of venue
can be properly reached. Bookout v. Beck, 354 F.2d
823, 825 (9th Cir. 1965).
Therefore, in relation to Section 1391(e), that
provision can be said to authorize suit in the Southern
District of New York in the instant case if, but only if,
jurisdiction- personal and subject matter- otherwise
exists. Undoubtedly subject matter jurisdiction
exists.28 U.S.C. § 2241.
[8][9] As appellant concedes, the general rule in
regard to personal jurisdiction under Section 2241 is
that the writ may only issue within the district where
the petitioner is ‘in custody.’ The relevant phrase in
Section 2241, ‘within their respective jurisdictions,’
limits the power of a district court to hear and
determine a prisoner's petition for habeas corpus to
those situations where the prisoner both is physically
present in the court's territorial jurisdiction and is
detained or held in custody within that
jurisdiction.Ahrens v. Clark, supra. This rule was
slightly changed in 1966 by the enactment of 28
U.S.C. § 2241(d) for the limited purpose of
permitting the district court for the district where the
state sentencing court was held to issue the writ,
although the petitioner is held in another district.
United States ex rel. Griffin v. LaVallee, 270 F.Supp.
© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 5
531 (E.D.N.Y.1967).
[10] However, but for this one instance, it is generally
required that a petitioner be held in custody within
the court's territorial jurisdiction. In Orloff v. Lovett,
101 F.Supp. 750 (D.D.C.), the Court held that a
Private in the Army who was voluntarily in the
District of Columbia was not restrained within the
District and his petition for habeas corpus was
dismissed. Similarly, where a prisoner has escaped,
he is also no longer in custody within the territorial
jurisdiction*21 of the court. See Ragsdale v.
Cameron, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 278, 329 F.2d 233
(1963), where an appeal of the denial of a writ of
habeas corpus was dismissed as moot when the
petitioner had escaped and had not returned to
custody on the date his appeal was to be heard.
Furthermore, it is also apparent that a court does not
have power to issue a writ unless the person who has
custody of a petitioner is within reach of the court's
process. See United States ex rel. Keefe v. Dulles, 94
U.S.App.D.C. 381, 222 F.2d 390,cert. denied, 348
U.S. 952, 75 S.Ct. 440, 99 L.Ed. 743 (1955).
[11] One held in custody must also bring his petition
for habeas corpus against the proper official. United
States ex rel. Lyle v. Carney, 277 F.Supp. 250
(W.D.Pa.1967).Ahrens v. Clark, supra, left open the
question whether the Attorney General, rather than
the petitioner's immediate custodian, is the proper
respondent in a habeas corpus action and also
whether such an objection can be waived. We do not
find it necessary to reach either question in the
present case.
The Government maintains that appellant, while on
leave, remained under the control of his commanding
officer at Fort Ord, California until he was to report
to Oakland on March 9, 1969, AR 330-12, and
therefore argues that the present suit must be brought
in California. Appellant, in turn, claims that when he
left Fort Ord with orders to report to Oakland about
two weeks later, a vacuum was created so that neither
commanding officer had control over him. While the
question of which duty station had control of
petitioner in the period from February 22 to March 9
is not without difficulty, we note that both stations are
in the Northern District of California. Accordingly, if
the action had been brought in that district, it would
412 F.2d 16 Page 6
412 F.2d 16
(Cite as: 412 F.2d 16)

not have been necessary for that court to decide the

issue, since both commanding officers would have
been within its jurisdiction. The Government also
asserts that appellant is certainly not being detained
or held in custody in New York because he is
presently absent without leave. The appellant
responds by making the unusual argument that his
status of being in the Army amounts to being
detained by the Secretary of the Army and the
Secretary of Defense. He concludes that wherever he
happens to be while he is in the Army, he is in
custody of those officials.

[12][13] It is readily apparent that neither the

Secretary of the Army nor the Secretary of Defense,
nor any other official who may be appellant's
commanding officer, can be found in the Southern
District of New York. Therefore, no person having
custody of the appellant is within the territorial
jurisdiction of the District Court, nor is such person
within reach of the District Court's process. On that
basis alone, jurisdiction appears lacking.
Furthermore, under appellant's view, a soldier
seeking habeas corpus relief would not be required to
bring suit against his commanding officer where he is
stationed and presumably where his pertinent files are
located. Instead, he would be entitled to sue the
Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of Defense in
any forum of his own choosing anywhere in the
United States. Additionally it is doubtful whether a
soldier who is absent without leave can be
characterized as within the custody of any officer of
the Armed Forces, any more than it can be said that
an escaped prisoner is in the custody of his
jailer.Ragsdale v. Cameron, supra.

It is apparent then that there was no jurisdiction in the

District Court at the time suit was commenced and
that the District Court's refusal to sign an order to
show cause on that ground was not erroneous.

The decision below is affirmed.

C.A.N.Y. 1969.
U. S. ex rel. Rudick v. Laird
412 F.2d 16

END OF DOCUMENT

© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

 Date of Printing: Apr 19, 2009

KEYCITE

U. S. ex rel. Rudick v. Laird, 412 F.2d 16 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.),Apr 23, 1969) (NO. 533, 33354)
History

Direct History

=> 1 U. S. ex rel. Rudick v. Laird, 412 F.2d 16 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Apr 23, 1969) (NO. 33354, 533)
Certiorari Denied by
2 Rudick v. Laird, 396 U.S. 918, 90 S.Ct. 244, 24 L.Ed.2d 197 (U.S.N.Y. Nov 10, 1969) (NO. 628,
MISC)

Negative Citing References (U.S.A.)

Distinguished by
3 Donigian v. Laird, 308 F.Supp. 449 (D.Md. Dec 15, 1969) (NO. CIV. 20884) HN: 12 (F.2d)
4 U. S. ex rel. Armstrong v. Wheeler, 321 F.Supp. 471 (E.D.Pa. Dec 02, 1970) (NO. CIV. 70-1755)
HN: 8 (F.2d)
5 Meck v. Commanding Officer, Valley Forge General Hospital, 452 F.2d 758 (3rd Cir.(Pa.) Nov 22,
1971) (NO. 19276) HN: 13 (F.2d)
6 Miller v. Chafee, 462 F.2d 335 (9th Cir.(Hawai'i) Jun 20, 1972) (NO. 71-1604) HN: 12 (F.2d)

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 Date of Printing: Apr 19, 2009

KEYCITE

U. S. ex rel. Rudick v. Laird, 412 F.2d 16 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.), Apr 23, 1969) (NO. 533, 33354)

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 Date of Printing: Apr 19, 2009

KEYCITE

U. S. ex rel. Rudick v. Laird, 412 F.2d 16 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Apr 23, 1969) (NO. 533, 33354)
Citing References

Negative Cases (U.S.A.)

Distinguished by
1 Miller v. Chafee, 462 F.2d 335, 337 (9th Cir.(Hawai'i) Jun 20, 1972) (NO. 71-1604) HN: 12
(F.2d)
2 Meck v. Commanding Officer, Valley Forge General Hospital, 452 F.2d 758, 760+ (3rd Cir.(Pa.) Nov
22, 1971) (NO. 19276) HN: 13 (F.2d)
3 U. S. ex rel. Armstrong v. Wheeler, 321 F.Supp. 471, 474+ (E.D.Pa. Dec 02, 1970) (NO. CIV. 70-
1755) HN: 8 (F.2d)
4 Donigian v. Laird, 308 F.Supp. 449, 452+ (D.Md. Dec 15, 1969) (NO. CIV. 20884) HN: 12
(F.2d)

Positive Cases (U.S.A.)

   Examined
5 U. S. ex rel. Lohmeyer v. Laird, 318 F.Supp. 94, 96+ (D.Md. May 20, 1970) (NO. CIV. 20719) "
HN: 10,12 (F.2d)

   Discussed
6 Jarrett v. Resor, 426 F.2d 213, 217+, 13 A.L.R. Fed. 137, 137+ (9th Cir.(Cal.) Jan 23, 1970) (NO.
24668) " HN: 9,10 (F.2d)
7 Morales v. Obarski, 337 F.Supp. 368, 369+ (D.Puerto Rico Sep 22, 1971) (NO. CIV. 431-71) HN: 10
(F.2d)

   Cited
8 Strait v. Laird, 92 S.Ct. 1693, 1697, 406 U.S. 341, 348, 32 L.Ed.2d 141, 141 (U.S.Cal. May 22,
1972) (NO. 71-83) (in dissent) HN: 12 (F.2d)
9 Schlanger v. Seamans, 91 S.Ct. 995, 998, 401 U.S. 487, 491, 28 L.Ed.2d 251, 251 (U.S.Ariz. Mar 23,
1971) (NO. 5481)
10 U.S. ex rel. Bailey v. U.S. Commanding Officer of Office of Provost Marshal, U.S. Army, 496 F.2d
324, 326 (1st Cir.(Mass.) May 15, 1974) (NO. 74-1023) " HN: 13 (F.2d)

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

11 Carney v. Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, 462 F.2d 606, 607+ (1st Cir.(R.I.) Jun 21, 1972) (NO.
71-1262) HN: 12 (F.2d)
12 Hanly v. Powell Goldstein, L.L.P., 290 Fed.Appx. 435, 438 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Aug 26, 2008) (Table,
text in WESTLAW, NO. 07-1440-CV (L), 07-1591 (XAP))
13 Gulf Ins. Co. v. Glasbrenner, 417 F.3d 353, 357, 62 Fed.R.Serv.3d 592, 592 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Aug 02,
2005) (NO. 04-0070-CV) "
14 Local 538 United Broth. of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co., 154
F.3d 52, 55 (2nd Cir.(Vt.) Aug 31, 1998) (NO. 97-7235, 97-7205) " HN: 1 (F.2d)
15 Arlen v. Laird, 451 F.2d 684, 686+ (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Oct 28, 1971) (NO. 58, 71-1446) HN: 12 (F.2d)
16 Feliciano v. Laird, 426 F.2d 424, 427 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Apr 16, 1970) (NO. 669, 34560) HN: 12 (F.2d)
17 Myers v. American Dental Ass'n, 695 F.2d 716, 725, 35 Fed.R.Serv.2d 744, 744, 1982-83 Trade
Cases P 65,080, 65080 (3rd Cir.(Virgin Islands) Dec 10, 1982) (NO. 81-2573) HN: 2 (F.2d)
18 Barber v. Simpson, 94 F.3d 648, 648 (8th Cir.(Mo.) Aug 23, 1996) (Table, text in WESTLAW, NO.
95-4210) HN: 6 (F.2d)
19 Dillon v. Chandler, 452 F.2d 1081, 1082 (9th Cir.(Cal.) Dec 29, 1971) (NO. 26795) HN: 10 (F.2d)
20 Smith v. Campbell, 450 F.2d 829, 834 (9th Cir.(Cal.) Oct 11, 1971) (NO. 71-1443) HN: 11 (F.2d)
21 Kipperman v. McCone, 422 F.Supp. 860, 871 (N.D.Cal. Oct 26, 1976) (NO. C-75-1211-CBR)
22 Taylor v. Chaffee, 327 F.Supp. 1131, 1133 (C.D.Cal. Apr 30, 1971) (NO. CIV. 71-374) HN: 12
(F.2d)
23 DePino v. Commanding Officer, U.S. A. Overseas Replacement Station, Fort Lewis, Wash., 322
F.Supp. 56, 58 (D.Conn. Feb 05, 1971) (NO. CIV. 14047) HN: 1 (F.2d)
24 Shoemaker v. McConnell, 556 F.Supp.2d 351, 354+ (D.Del. Jun 02, 2008) (NO. CIV. 08-014-SLR)
HN: 3 (F.2d)
25 Grossman v. McMillan, 1976 WL 1052, *2, 37 A.F.T.R.2d 76-1397, 76-1397, 76-2 USTC P 9490,
9490 (S.D.Fla. Apr 05, 1976) (NO. 75-1100-CIV-JI) HN: 2 (F.2d)
26 U.S. ex rel. Sadiku v. Moyer, 1995 WL 215050, *2 (N.D.Ill. Apr 11, 1995) (NO. 95 C 1487) HN: 13
(F.2d)
27 Weitz Company, LLC v. Lloyd's of London, 2004 WL 3158070, *6 (S.D.Iowa Dec 06, 2004) (NO.
4:04-CV-90353) " HN: 3 (F.2d)
28 McKay v. Secretary of U. S. Air Force, 306 F.Supp. 1252, 1254 (D.Mass. Dec 03, 1969) (NO. MISC.
69-80-W)
29 Silberberg v. Willis, 306 F.Supp. 1013, 1020+ (D.Mass. Dec 02, 1969) (NO. MISC. CIV. 69-77-W)
HN: 12 (F.2d)
30 Laxer v. Cushman, 300 F.Supp. 920, 923+ (D.Mass. Jun 19, 1969) (NO. MISC. CIV. 69-28J)
31 Ramirez v. U.S., 2007 WL 2729019, *3+ (S.D.N.Y. Sep 14, 2007) (NO. 05CIV.2692(RMB)(KNF))
HN: 8,10 (F.2d)
32 Banks v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services, 2001 WL 1448612, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov 15,
2001) (NO. 01 CIV. 3985 (RWS)) HN: 11 (F.2d)
33 Arias-Agramonte v. C.I.R., 2000 WL 1617999, *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct 30, 2000) (NO. 00 CIV. 2412
(RWS)) HN: 12 (F.2d)
34 Tejeda v. Reno, 2000 WL 1280969, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sep 11, 2000) (NO. 00-CIV-6338 SAS) HN: 3
(F.2d)

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

35 Zumft v. Doney Slate Co., 698 F.Supp. 444, 446 (E.D.N.Y. Nov 03, 1988) (NO. CV 88-0720) HN: 3
(F.2d)
36 Naum v. Brown, 604 F.Supp. 1186, 1187 (E.D.N.Y. Mar 22, 1985) (NO. CV 84-3066) HN: 10 (F.2d)
37 Arlen v. Laird, 325 F.Supp. 1334, 1336+ (S.D.N.Y. Apr 21, 1971) (NO. 71 CIV. 538) HN: 10 (F.2d)
38 Grosso v. Resor, 322 F.Supp. 670, 673 (E.D.N.Y. Jan 13, 1971) (NO. CIV. 70-C-1538) HN: 12
(F.2d)
39 Switkes v. Laird, 316 F.Supp. 358, 361+ (S.D.N.Y. Jul 02, 1970) (NO. 70 CIV. 2362) " HN: 10,11,12
(F.2d)
40 U. S. ex rel. Jimenez v. Conboy, 310 F.Supp. 801, 803+ (S.D.N.Y. Apr 02, 1970) (NO. 70 CIVIL
285) HN: 12 (F.2d)
41 U. S. ex rel. Brown v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 301 F.Supp. 1232, 1233 (E.D.N.Y. Jul 02,
1969) (NO. 69-C-151) HN: 9 (F.2d)
42 Heft v. AAI Corp., 355 F.Supp.2d 757, 762, 35 Employee Benefits Cas. 1215, 1215 (M.D.Pa. Jan 24,
2005) (NO. CIV.A. 104CV1709)
43 Meck v. Commanding Officer, Valley Forge General Hospital, Phoenixville, Pa., 320 F.Supp. 1246,
1248 (E.D.Pa. Sep 14, 1970) (NO. 70-2116) " HN: 9,10 (F.2d)
44 Carney v. Secretary of Defense, 326 F.Supp. 741, 745+ (D.R.I. Apr 14, 1971) (NO. CIV. 4451) HN:
12 (F.2d)
45 Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. Cammarata, 2007 WL 1520993, *10 (S.D.Tex. May 22, 2007)
(NO. CIV.A. H-07-0405) " HN: 3 (F.2d)
46 U. S. ex rel. Rowland v. Cleary, 397 F.Supp. 395, 397 (E.D.Wis. Aug 13, 1975) (NO. CIV 73-C-363)
HN: 12 (F.2d)
47 U. S. ex rel. Wirtz v. Sheehan, 319 F.Supp. 146, 148+ (E.D.Wis. Nov 05, 1970) (NO. CIV. 70-C-241)
HN: 12 (F.2d)
48 U. S. ex rel. Conrad v. Laird, 318 F.Supp. 1329, 1329 (E.D.Wis. Jan 27, 1970) (NO. 69-C-630) HN:
12 (F.2d)
49 Ramirez Alvarado v. Saxby, 337 F.Supp. 1324, 1326+ (D.Puerto Rico Feb 25, 1972) (NO. CIV. 615-
71) HN: 12 (F.2d)
50 Morales Crespo v. Perrin, 309 F.Supp. 203, 205 (D.Puerto Rico Feb 24, 1970) (NO. CIV. 870-69)
HN: 10 (F.2d)
51 Wurster v. Perrin, 303 F.Supp. 480, 481 (D.Puerto Rico Jul 30, 1969) (NO. CIV. 414-69) HN: 5
(F.2d)
52 In re Burley, 27 B.R. 603, 607, 10 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 205, 205, Bankr. L. Rep. P 69,221, 69221 (9th
Cir.BAP (Cal.) Dec 28, 1982) (NO. CC-81-1150-KHG, LA 80-08761-RO) " (in dissent) HN: 3
(F.2d)
53 In re Washington, Perito & Dubuc, 154 B.R. 853, 861+, 24 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 557, 557+
(Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Jun 02, 1993) (NO. 92 B 46973 (PBA)) HN: 3 (F.2d)

   Mentioned
54 Pressroom Unions-Printers League Income Sec. Fund v. Continental Assur. Co., 700 F.2d 889, 893,
67 A.L.R. Fed. 937, 937, 37 Fed.R.Serv.2d 595, 595, 4 Employee Benefits Cas. 1112, 1112 (2nd Cir.
(N.Y.) Feb 18, 1983) (NO. 82-7631, 704) HN: 1 (F.2d)

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

55 Billiteri v. U.S. Bd. of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Aug 30, 1976) (NO. 732, 75-6120)
56 Sholars v. Matter, 491 F.2d 279, 281 (9th Cir.(Cal.) Jan 11, 1974) (NO. 71-3078)
57 Piland v. Eidson, 477 F.2d 1148, 1150 (9th Cir.(Cal.) Apr 18, 1973) (NO. 71-2853) HN: 9 (F.2d)
58 Stokum v. Warner, 360 F.Supp. 261, 262 (C.D.Cal. Jun 12, 1973) (NO. CIV. 73-1190)
59 Lurz v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 1986 WL 15635, *1 (D.D.C. May 30, 1986) (NO. CIV.A. 86-0344) HN:
12 (F.2d)
60 U. S. ex rel. Jensen v. Flatley, 539 F.Supp. 1155, 1156 (N.D.Ill. May 27, 1982) (NO. 81 C 6581) HN:
12 (F.2d)
61 Lurz v. U.S. Parole Com'n, Dept. of Justice, 659 F.Supp. 441, 442 (S.D.Ind. Mar 30, 1987) (NO. TH
86-154-C) HN: 12 (F.2d)
62 Valdivia v. I.N.S., 80 F.Supp.2d 326, 332 (D.N.J. Jan 24, 2000) (NO. CIV. 99-4339) HN: 12 (F.2d)
63 Conway v. Taylor, 428 F.Supp. 884, 885 (S.D.N.Y. Mar 01, 1977) (NO. 76 CIV. 4398) HN: 9 (F.2d)
64 U. S. ex rel. Ervin v. Sawner, 322 F.Supp. 1108, 1109 (S.D.N.Y. Feb 16, 1971) (NO. 71 CIV. 101)
HN: 12 (F.2d)
65 Diogenes v. Malcolm, 600 F.Supp. 815, 818 (E.D.Pa. Jan 17, 1985) (NO. CIV. A. 84-4085) HN: 12
(F.2d)
66 Crowley v. U.S., 388 F.Supp. 981, 986 (E.D.Wis. Feb 19, 1975) (NO. CIV. 72-C-398) HN: 12 (F.2d)
67 Perez-Jimenez v. Laird, 325 F.Supp. 457, 458 (D.Puerto Rico Apr 30, 1971) (NO. CIV. 177-71)
68 In re De Camillis' Estate, 322 N.Y.S.2d 551, 556, 66 Misc.2d 882, 888 (N.Y.Sur. Jun 11, 1971) HN:
1 (F.2d)
69 In re Grimani's Estate, 1981 WL 625, *5, 20 Pa. D. & C.3d 557, 567, 6 Phila.Co.Rptr. 114, 114
(Pa.Com.Pl. Mar 10, 1981) HN: 1 (F.2d)

Secondary Sources (U.S.A.)

70 Discharge from Armed Forces on ground of conscientious objection, 10 A.L.R. Fed. 15 (1972) HN:
10,11,12,13 (F.2d)
71 Construction and application of 28 USC sec. 1391(e) providing for venue and process in civil actions
against federal officers, employees, or agencies, 9 A.L.R. Fed. 719 (1971) HN: 8,12,13 (F.2d)
72 Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition s 41:71, State with more than one federal judicial district (2008)
73 Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition s 41:72, General inapplicability of statute governing venue in
actions against federal officers (2008) HN: 10 (F.2d)
74 10 Mass. Prac. Series s 633, Jurisdiction and venue (2009)
75 1 West's Federal Forms s 133, Respondent's Conditional Cross-Petition for Certiorari (2009)
76 14D Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. s 3801, Venue Distinguished from Jurisdiction (2009)
HN: 2 (F.2d)
77 20 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice (2009) HN: 10 (F.2d)
78 CJS Federal Courts s 35, Generally (2008) HN: 2 (F.2d)
79 CJS Habeas Corpus s 262, Territorial limits on district court jurisdiction (2008) HN: 9 (F.2d)

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 80 CJS Habeas Corpus s 264, Military personnel (2008) HN: 12 (F.2d)
81 CJS Habeas Corpus s 285, Against whom writ runs (2008) HN: 11 (F.2d)
82 THE EMERGENCE OF JURISDICTIONAL RESEQUENCING IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, 87
Cornell L. Rev. 1, 98 (2001)
83 Second Circuit DECISION OF INTEREST U.S. Court of Appeals Insurer Should Be Allowed to
Prove Complaint; Policy Did Not Unambiguously Lay Venue in SDNY, 8/18/2005 N.Y. L.J. 21, col.
1, 21, col. 1 (2005)
84 ARIAS-AGRAMONTE V. COMMISSIONER OF INS QDS:02763157, 11/8/2000 N.Y. L.J. 29, col.
3, 29, col. 3 (2000)
85 "ADRIFT ON AN UNCHARTED SEA": A SURVEY OF SECTION 1404(a) TRANSFER IN THE
FEDERAL SYSTEM, 67 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 612, 646 (1992) HN: 2 (F.2d)
86 FEDERAL VENUE: LOCATING THE PLACE WHERE THE CLAIM AROSE, 54 Tex. L. Rev.
392, 421 (1976) HN: 3 (F.2d)
87 KELLIS v. FARBER: THE DEMISE OF CIVILIAN JURISDICTION RATIONE PERSONAE IN
LOUISIANA, 63 Tul. L. Rev. 717, 724 (1989) HN: 2 (F.2d)
88 NATIONWIDE SERVICE OF PROCESS: DUE PROCESS LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF
THE SOVEREIGN, 33 Vill. L. Rev. 1, 48+ (1988) HN: 12 (F.2d)
89 30905 National Business Institute 13, INITIATING A CIVIL CASE IN FEDERAL COURT (2006)

Court Documents

Appellate Court Documents (U.S.A.)

Appellate Petitions, Motions and Filings

90 Mel JENKINS, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA KEYS COMMUNITY COLLEGE, et al., Respondents.,
1997 WL 33549721, *33549721+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Oct 15, 1997)
Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 97-803) HN: 3 (F.2d)

Appellate Briefs
91 David H. LEROY, Attorney General of Idaho, and Tom D. McEldowney, Director of the Department
of Finance of the State of Idaho, Appellants, v. GREAT WESTERN UNITED CORPORATION,
Appellee., 1979 WL 199527, *199527+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 14, 1979) Appellants' Reply
Brief (NO. 78-759) HN: 6 (F.2d)
92 William H. STAFFORD, Jr., Stuart J. Carrouth, and Claude Meadow, Petitioners, v. John BRIGGS,
et al., Respondents., 1979 WL 199680, *199680+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 07, 1979) Brief for
the Respondents (NO. 77-1546) HN: 12 (F.2d)
93 William E. COLBY, and Vernon A. Walters, Petitioners, v. Rodney DRIVER, et al., Respondents.,
1979 WL 199498, *199498+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 01, 1979) Brief for the Petitioners (NO.
78-303) HN: 12 (F.2d)
94 William H. STAFFORD, Jr., Stuart J. Carrouth and Claude Meadow, Petitioners, v. John BRIGGS, et

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 al., Respondents., 1979 WL 199679, *199679+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 01, 1979) Brief for the
Petitioners (NO. 77-1546) HN: 12 (F.2d)
95 Corby v. Driver, 1979 WL 213585, *213585+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 01, 1979) Brief for the
Petitioners (NO. 78-303) HN: 12 (F.2d)
96 Stafford v. Briggs, 1979 WL 213872, *213872+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 01, 1979) Brief for the
Petitioners (NO. 77-1546) HN: 12 (F.2d)
97 Strait v. Laird, 1972 WL 137515, *137515+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 23, 1972) Brief for the
Respondents (NO. 71-83) HN: 10 (F.2d)
98 Strait v. Laird, 1972 WL 137514, *137514+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 08, 1972) Brief of the
Petitioner (NO. 71-83) HN: 12 (F.2d)
99 Herbert Phillip SCHLANGER, Petitioner, v. Robert C. SEAMANS, Jr., et al., 1971 WL 167585,
*167585+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 05, 1971) Brief for the Respondents (NO. 5481) "
HN: 12 (F.2d)
100 Schlanger v. Seamans, 1971 WL 132997, *132997+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 1971) Brief for the
Respondents (NO. 5481) " HN: 12 (F.2d)
101 Schlanger v. Seamans, 1971 WL 133010, *133010+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 1971) Brief for the
Respondents (NO. 5481) " HN: 12 (F.2d)
102 Schlanger v. Seamans, 1970 WL 121870, *121870+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 24, 1970) Brief of
the American Civil Liberties Union ... (NO. 5481) HN: 13 (F.2d)
103 Schlanger v. Seamans, 1970 WL 121873, *121873+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 24, 1970) Brief of
the American Civil Liberties Union ... (NO. 5481) HN: 13 (F.2d)
104 Schlanger v. Seamans, 1970 WL 136228, *136228+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 24, 1970) Brief of
the American Civil Liberties Union ... (NO. 5481) HN: 13 (F.2d)
105 Schlanger v. Seamans, 1970 WL 121869, *121869+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 17, 1970) Brief for
Petitioner (NO. 5481)
106 Schlanger v. Seamans, 1970 WL 121872, *121872+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 17, 1970) Brief for
Petitioner (NO. 5481)
107 Schlanger v. Seamans, 1970 WL 136227, *136227+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 17, 1970) Brief for
Petitioner (NO. 5481)
108 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK and Suffolk County Water Authority, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ATLANTIC
RICHFIELD COMPANY, Bp Products North America, Inc., Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Chevrontexaco
Corporation, Coastal Eagle Point Oil Company, Conoco Phillips Company, El Paso Merchant
Energy, L.P., Equistar Chemicals, LP, Exxon Mobil Corporation, formerly known as Exxon
Corporation, formerly known as Mobile Corporation, Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc., Hess
Corporation, Irving Oil, 2007 WL 6097965, *6097965+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Nov 01, 2007)
Reply Brief of Defendants-Appellants (NO. 07-3043-CV) HN: 1 (F.2d)
109 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK and Suffolk County Water Authority, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ATLANTIC
RICHFIELD COMPANY, Bp Products North America, Inc., Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Chevrontexaco
Corporation, Coastal Eagle Point Oil Company, Conoco Phillips Company, El Paso Merchant
Energy, L.P., Equistar Chemicals, LP, Exxon Mobil Corporation, formerly known as Exxon
Corporation, formerly known as Mobile Corporation, Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc., Hess
Corporation, Irving Oil, 2007 WL 6097966, *6097966+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Sep 13, 2007)
Brief of Defendants-Appellants (NO. 07-3043-CV) HN: 1 (F.2d)

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

110 GULF INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CALDOR CORPORATION, Debtor,
v. Susan GLASBRENNER and David Glasbrenner, Defendant-Appellees., 2007 WL 5269521,
*5269521+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Jun 29, 2007) Brief and Special Appendix for Plaintiff-
Appellant (NO. 06-2871-CV(L), 06-2888-BK, 06-2891-BK) " HN: 6 (F.2d)
111 SOLE RESORT, S.A. DE C.V., Petitioner-Aappellant, v. ALLURE RESORTS MANAGEMENT,
LLC, Respondent-Aappellee., 2005 WL 5298499, *5298499+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Dec 13,
2005) Brief and Special Appendix for ... (NO. 05-5786-CV) HN: 6 (F.2d)
112 Ricky Walters Lloyd WALTERS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the
United States; Immigration and Naturalization Service; and John Bulger, District Director,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondents-Appellants., 2005 WL 4680748, *4680748+
(Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2005) Brief of Petitioner-Appellee (NO. 04-0099-PR) "
HN: 11,12 (F.2d)
113 William Woodrow WILSON, Petitioner-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. Janet RENO, Attorney
General of the United States; Doris Meissner, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization
Service; Edward McElroy, New York District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service;
Lynne Underdown, New Orleans District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service;
Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Department of, 2005 WL 4035322,
*4035322+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Jun 29, 2005) Brief for Respondents-Appellants-Cross-
Appellees (NO. 04-5869-PR(L)04-5973) " HN: 9,10 (F.2d)
114 Ricky Martin Lloyd WALTERS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the
United States; Immigration & Naturalization Service; Edward J. McElroy, Assistant District
Director, Respondents-Appellants., 2005 WL 4680747, *4680747+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Jun
15, 2005) Brief for Respondents-Appellants (NO. 04-0099-PR) " HN: 10 (F.2d)
115 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. Raul LUCIANO, aka Roline, aka Raul Luciano,
Richard Rodriguez, Armando Luciano, aka Mando, Edward Parrett, Harry Rodriguez, Victor
Cochran, aka Fat Vic, Enrico Maturo, Josue Santana, aka Chepo, Edgardo Carmona, efran
Rodriguez, Ronald Fassett, Charles Fassett, Anthony Cesario, Elizabeth Rodriguez, Juan Cintron,
Gary Vaspasiano, William Tienken, Jr., Defendants, Frank Michael PARISE, Defendant-Appellee.,
2001 WL 34314833, *34314833 (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Jul 09, 2001) Brief for Defendant-
Appellee Frank Michael Parise (NO. 01-1198)
116 V.W. BROAD, individually and on behalf of those certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London
subscribing to Policy No. H5662/HF914561, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DKP CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee., 1998 WL 34088210, *34088210 (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Dec 1998) Brief
for Defendant-Appellee DKP Corporation (NO. 98-9271)
117 NEW YORK CURRENCY RESEARCH CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMODITY FUTURES
TRADING COMMISSION, Respondent., 1998 WL 34093951, *34093951+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd
Cir. Jul 06, 1998) Brief for Petitioner New York Currency Research ... (NO. 98-4159) HN: 1
(F.2d)
118 Engin YESIL, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Janet RENO, Attorney General; Doris Meissner,
Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service; Immigration and Naturalization
Service; John B. Z. Caplinger, District Director; Nancy Hooks, Officer in Charge, Respondents-
Appellants., 1998 WL 34078731, *34078731+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Jan 12, 1998) Reply Brief
for Respondents-Appellants (NO. 97-2629)

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 119 Engin YESII, Petitioner - Appellee, v. Janet RENO, Attorney General; Doris Meissner,
Commissioner of the Immigration & Naturalization Service; Immigration & Naturalization Service;
John B. Z. Caplinger, District Director; and Nancy Hooks, Officer in Charge, Respondents -
Appellants., 1997 WL 33484745, *33484745+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Dec 24, 1997) Brief for
Petitioner - Appellee (NO. 97-2629)
120 Engin YESIL, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Janet RENO, Attorney General; Doris Meissner,
Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service; Immigration and Naturalization
Service; John B. Z. Caplinger, District Director; Nancy Hooks, Officer in Charge, Respondents-
Appellants., 1997 WL 33484744, *33484744+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Nov 24, 1997) Brief for
Respondents-Appellants (NO. 97-2629)
121 Julia A. OPALENIK, n/b/m Isner, and Robert Isner, her Husband, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v.
Gary RHOADES and Catherine Rhoades, his Wife, Appellees/Cross-Appellants., 1991 WL
11247214, *11247214+ (Appellate Brief) (3rd Cir. Aug 01, 1991) Reply Brief of Appellants/Cross-
Appellees Julia ... (NO. 91-3357, 91-3393) HN: 12 (F.2d)
122 Julia A. OPALENIK, n/b/m Isner, and Robert Isner, her Husband, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v.
Gary RHOADES and Catherine Rhoades, his Wife, Appellees Cross-Appellants., 1991 WL
11247215, *11247215+ (Appellate Brief) (3rd Cir. Jul 12, 1991) Brief of Appellees/Cross-
Appellants Gary Rhoades ... (NO. 91-3357, 91-3393) HN: 4,6 (F.2d)
123 Ben F. JACOBS Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.D. MILES.,Warden Respondent-Appellee., 2004 WL
3048315, *3048315+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. May 12, 2004) Petitioner-Appellant Brief (NO.
03-41724) HN: 9 (F.2d)
124 Gilbert LEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Janet RENO, United States Attorney General; Doris Meissner,
Commissioner, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service; Thomas J. Schiltgen, District Director,
San Francisco; Lynne Underdown, District Director, New Orleans, Respondents-Appellees., 1999
WL 33727191, *33727191+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Aug 09, 1999) Brief for Respondents-
Appellees (NO. 99-15311) " HN: 6,10 (F.2d)
125 ELLEN PAULETTE MITCHELL FIELDS, Pro se, (Ellen Paulette Mitchell Fields)pro se XXX-XX-
XXXX Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant., 2002 WL 32389834, *32389834 (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir. Jun 08, 2002) Appellant's
Brief (NO. 02-13399-CC) HN: 6 (F.2d)
126 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie James GRIFFIN, Jr., Defendants
Appellee., 2001 WL 34356619, *34356619+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir. Apr 23, 2001) Brief for
Appellant. (NO. 01-11391-BB) " HN: 10 (F.2d)

Trial Court Documents (U.S.A.)

Trial Motions, Memoranda and Affidavits

127 Edward WEDELSTEDT, Plaintiff, v. THE LAW OFFICES OF GOLDSTEIN, Goldstein and Hilley;
Gerald H. Goldstein; an Individual; and Does 1-3, Defendants., 2006 WL 397138, *397138 (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Colo. Jan 13, 2006) Defendants' Reply Brief in Support
of Motion to ... (NO. 05-CV-01820PSF-MJW)

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

128 Jonathan E. O'REILLY, Plaintiff, v. Donald RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense; et al., Defendants.,
2006 WL 897061, *897061 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. Apr 04, 2006)
Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to ... (NO. 06-10147RCL)
129 Alexander ZENO, Plaintiff, v. Jose A. FUSTE, et al., Defendants., 2008 WL 4334862, *4334862
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Md. May 13, 2008) Memorandum in Support of
Motion to Dismiss or for ... (NO. 807CV03173)
130 SRS ENERGY, INC., and Cleantech Biofuels, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. BIO-PRODUCTS
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Clean Earth Solutions, Inc., Michael H. Eley, Brian Blatz, and Edward
Campos, Defendants., 2008 WL 1750765, *1750765 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(E.D.Mo. Mar 07, 2008) Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities ... (NO.
408CV285HEA)
131 SOUTHWEST GAS CORP., Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, Afl-Cio-Clc and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 769,
Defendants., 2003 WL 24265837, *24265837 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Nev.
Jan 24, 2003) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support ... (NO. CV-S-02-1728-JCM-
(LR)
132 JA DESIGNS, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. CRIS-CROSS CLOTHING, INC., a New
Jersey corporation; B.T. Industries, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, Merritt Fabric Corp., a New
Jersey corporation and Bruce Kopelman, Defendants., 2002 WL 32981266, *32981266 (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Nev. Aug 29, 2002) Reply to Opposition of Plaintiff to
Defendants ... (NO. CV-N-01-0546-HDM-VPC)
133 JA DESIGNS, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. CRIS-CROSS CLOTHING, INC., a New
Jersey corporation; B.T. Industries, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, Merritt Fabric Corp., a New
Jersey corporation and Bruce Kopelman, Defendants., 2002 WL 32981264, *32981264 (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Nev. Jul 30, 2002) Defendants B.T. Industries, Inc.,
Merritt Fabric ... (NO. CV-N-01-0546-HDM-VPC)
134 FIFTH AVENUE OF LONG ISLAND REALTY ASSOCIATES d/b/a Americana Manhasset,
Plaintiff, v. CARUSO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Ltd. d/b/a Caruso Affiliated d/b/a Caruso
Affiliates, Defendant., 2008 WL 2318888, *2318888+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(E.D.N.Y. Apr 10, 2008) Memorandum of Law and Facts in Support of ... (NO. 208CV00384)

135 PROSPECT ENERGY CORPORATION, Prospect Capital Management LLC, John F. Barry, M.
Grier Eliasek, Walter Parker and Bart De Bie, Petitioners, v. Michael ENMON, Respondent., 2007
WL 672342, *672342+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.N.Y. Jan 24, 2007)
Enmon's Memorandum of Law in Support of His ... (NO. 07-117(RLC))
136 Bradley E. SCHWAN, Plaintiff, v. Donald RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense, Francis J. Harvey,
Secretary of the Army, Daniel Denning, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs (Acting), Ltg James Helmly, Commander Usar, Mg Terrill K. Moffett, Commander, 104th
Division (IT), and Col John H. Mosely, Commander, 7th Brigade (PD), Defendants., 2005 WL
3825747, *3825747+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.N.Y. Oct 07, 2005)
Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' ... (NO. 056397, LAK)
137 CARDINAL HEALTH, INC. 7000 Cardinal Place Dublin, Ohio 43017, Plaiintiff, v. GINMAR
CORPORATE PROMOTONS, INC. 770 North LaSalle Street Suite 801 Chicago, Illinois 60610,
Defendat., 2008 WL 4734272, *4734272 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ohio Sep
15, 2008) Defendant Ginmar's Reply Brief In Support of Its ... (NO. 208CV00697) " HN: 6
(F.2d)

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

138 Eric M. BOHNE, individually and as Trustee of the Eric M. Bohne Revocable Family Trust No. 1,
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CLOSINGS OF TULSA, L.L.C., an
Oklahoma limited liability company, et al., Defendants., 2005 WL 4132150, *4132150+ (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Okla. May 23, 2005) Motion to Dismiss Amended
Class Action Complaint ... (NO. 05-CV-0197-TCK-SAJ)
139 Eric M. BOHNE, individually and as Trustee of the Eric M. Bohne Revocable Family Trust No. 1,
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CLOSINGS OF TULSA, L.L.C., an
Oklahoma limited liability company, et al., Defendants., 2005 WL 4132151, *4132151+ (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Okla. May 23, 2005) Motion to Dismiss Amended
Class Action Complaint ... (NO. 05-CV-0197-TCK-SAJ)
140 Eric M. BOHNE, individually and as Trustee of the Eric M. Bohne Revocable Family Trust No. 1,
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CLOSINGS OF TULSA, L.L.C., an
Oklahoma limited liability company, et al., Defendants., 2005 WL 4132148, *4132148 (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Okla. May 13, 2005) Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to
Motion to ... (NO. 05-CV-0197-TCK-SAJ)
141 Eric M. BOHNE, individually and as Trustee of the Eric M. Bohne Revocable Family Trust No. 1,
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CLOSINGS OF TULSA, L.L.C., an
Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, et al., Defendants., 2005 WL 4132149, *4132149 (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Okla. May 13, 2005) Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to
Motion to ... (NO. 05-CV-0197TCK-SAJ)
142 Murali Krishna PONNAPULA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Defendants., 2006 WL 3845459, *3845459 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Tenn. Sep 18, 2006) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant
to Fed. R. ... (NO. 06-2350BV)
143 HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.; Pamco Cayman Ltd.; ML CBO IV (Cayman) Ltd.;
Highland Legacy Limited; KZH Highland - 2 LLC; KZH Pamco LLC; SRV - Highland, Inc.; and
Gleneagles Trading LLC, Plaintiffs, v. WELSH, CARSON, ANDERSON & STOWE; WELSH,
CARSON, ANDERSON & STOWE VI, L.P.; Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe VII, L.P.; Welsh,
Carson, Anderson & Stowe VIII L.P.; Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe IX, L.P.; WCAS Capital
Partners II, L.P.; Savvis Communications Corporation;, 2003 WL 24278946, *24278946 (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Tex. Jul 03, 2003) Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration of the ... (NO. 3-02CV2105-K)
144 HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.; Pamco Cayman Ltd.; ML CBO IV (Cayman) Ltd.;
Highland Legacy Limited; KZH Highland - 2 LLC; KZH Pamco LLC; SRV - Highland, Inc.; and
Gleneagles Trading LLC, Plaintiffs, v. WELSH, CARSON, ANDERSON & STOWE; WELSH,
CARSON, ANDERSON & STOWE VI, L.P.; Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe VII, L.P.; Welsh,
Carson, Anderson & Stowe VIII L.P.; Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe IX, L.P.; WCAS Capital
Partners II, L.P.; Savvis Communications Corporation;, 2002 WL 32990195, *32990195+ (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Tex. Nov 04, 2002) Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants'
Motion for ... (NO. 3-02CV2105-M)
145 In re: PONDEROSA PINE ENERGY PARTNERS, LTD., Debtor., 2005 WL 1313913, *1313913
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Bankr.D.N.J. Apr 14, 2005) Motion of Brazos Electric
Power Cooperative, Inc. ... (NO. 05-21444, NLW)
146 In re: WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., et al., Debtors., 2005 WL 643275, *643275 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Mar 14, 2005) Motion of Buffalo Rock Company to
Transfer Venue ... (NO. 05-11063, RDD) HN: 3 (F.2d)

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.