 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
BRIEF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CIR PLAINTIFF COURT CATALYST DEFENDANT PREVAILING PARTY RELIEF FEE-SHIFTING STATUTES CIVIL LITIGATION CIRCUIT PURPOSE CIVIL RIGHTS CATALYST RULE FEE AWARD UNITED STATES COMPLAINT AMICI CURIAE BAUMGARTNER FEDERAL LAW SETTLEMENT SUPREME COURT CARE HOME AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES PETITIONERS ENFORCEMENT BUCKHANNON BOARD CIVIL LIBERTIES HARRISBURG |
NO. 99-1848
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
________
BUCKHANNON BOARD AND CARE HOME INC., et al.,
Petitioners ,
v.
WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN RESOURCES, et al., Respondents.
________
On Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
________
BRIEF FOR PUBLIC CITIZEN
AND THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
BRIAN WOLFMAN STEVEN R. SHAPIRO
(Counsel of Record) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
PUBLIC CITIZEN UNION FOUNDATION
LITIGATION GROUP 125 Broad Street
1600 20th Street, NW New York, NY 10004
Washington, DC 20009 (212) 549-2500
(202) 588-1000
HARVEY GROSSMAN
ARTHUR B. SPITZER ADAM SCHWARTZ
ACLU OF THE ROGER BALDWIN FOUNDATION
NATIONAL CAPITAL AREA OF ACLU, INC.
1400 20th Street, NW 180 North Michigan Avenue
Washington, DC 20036 Chicago, IL 60601
(202) 457-0800 (312) 201-9740
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether a plaintiff is a "prevailing party" for the
purpose of fee-shifting statutes where, as a result of the
litigation, the defendant provides the relief the plaintiff sought
in the complaint.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
US OPPOSITION TO AMERICANS MOTION IN LIMINE-2
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
LEGEND UNITED STATES LEGEND AIRLINES MOTION PLASKETT COURT DISCOVERY TESTIMONY EXCLUDE LIMINE OPPOSITION DISTRICT COURT HUFFMAN DECL SUBPOENA AMERICAN MEMO MAGISTRATE JUDGE TESTIFYING MAGISTRATE JUDGE SANDERSON DFW AIRPORT DEPOSITION REPUTATION MONOPOLY POWER GOVERNMENT LITIGATION DISCOVERY DISPUTE LOW COST CARRIERS UNDERSTANDING HEARING TRANSCRIPT RELEVANCE |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, )) Civil Action No.: 99-1180-JTM
v. ))
AMR CORPORATION, )
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and )
AMR EAGLE HOLDING )
CORPORATION, ))
Defendants. )
______________________________ )
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
CERTAIN EVIDENCE RELATED TO LEGEND AIRLINES, INC.
INTRODUCTION
Defendants (collectively, "American") attempt to preclude testimony from Thomas G.
Plaskett of Legend Airlines, Inc. ("Legend"). American's motion arises from its unsuccessful
1
attempt to enforce a subpoena for documents issued to Legend. Having failed to obtain the
discovery it desired through the appropriate channels, American now attempts to visit the
consequences of that failure on the United States. There is simply no basis for granting the relief
that American seeks. Mr Plaskett's testimony is relevant and admissible and should be heard by
the Court.
Although American styles its Motion as one to exclude "certain testimony," American
1
actually seeks to prevent Mr. Plaskett from testifying entirely. (3/2/2001 American Memo at 2.)
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO
EXCLUDE CERTAIN EVIDENCE RELATED TO LEGEND AIRLINES, INC. -- PAGE 1
Thus, American's motion should be denied because: (1) the discovery dispute that forms
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
