We must decide whether a federal district court has diversity jurisdiction over a lawsuit involving a partnership where one of its partners is a dual American-British citizen domiciled in a foreign state. The district court held that it lacked diversity jurisdiction over such an entity, and we affirm.

I. APPELLATE JURISDICTION & STANDARD OF REVIEW

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28

In this case, we are called upon to determine which patents are subject to inter partes reexamination. Congress established the inter partes reexamination procedure as part of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-113, §§ 4001-4808, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-552 to -591 (“AIPA”). Pursuant to section 4608 of the AIPA, the inter partes reexamination procedure is available

Apotex Corp., Apotex, Inc., and Torpharm, Inc., (collectively, “Apotex”) and Impax Laboratories, Inc., appeal judgments entered against them by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Apotex and Impax were defendants in a multidistrict litigation initiated by plaintiffs Astrazeneca AB, Aktiebolaget Hassle, KBI-E, Inc., KBI, Inc., and Astrazeneca LP (collectively

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company brought this declaratory judgment action for a ruling that it had no duty to defend its insured, Compaq Computer Corporation (Compaq), in a case brought against it in Texas by Hal LaPray (LaPray litigation). Compaq counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that St. Paul had such a duty and for breach of contract damages and then moved for statutory damages

Plaintiff Specialty Beverages, L.L.C. sued Defendant Pabst Brewing Company for breach of contract and fraud. Specialty Beverages and Pabst both filed motions for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court granted Pabst’s motion regarding Specialty’s fraud claim and granted Specialty’s motion regarding Pabst’s impossibility

The plaintiffs, Shane Paul, Steven Bussone, Dale Stewart, Kenneth Hinzman, and William Meck,1 are individual truck drivers. They brought suit contending the defendant, USIS Commercial Services, Inc., violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x, in its procurement and dissemination of their employment histories. They claimed that USIS failed to comply with FCRA’s noti

Appellees, migrant farm workers (“workers”), brought this class action against Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. and Green Stripe, Inc.1 (“Ag-Mart”) under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”) 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. ,alleging that because Ag-Mart controlled the workers’ housing, Ag- Mart was required to ensure that the housing met AWPA standards and was certifie

Patrick H. Wright (“Wright”) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the government on his declaratory judgment action. Wright challenged the validity of 31 C.F.R. § 10.7(c)(1)(viii), claiming that it unlawfully and arbitrarily limits his right to represent taxpayers before the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). The district court found that 31 C.F.R. §10

Toby Scrivner and Angelique Pisano (the “debtors”) appeal from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s authorization of a surcharge of their exempt property. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), we REVERSE the BAP’s judgment and the bankruptcy court’s order authorizing the surcharge of the debtors’ exempt assets

Eleven states, the District of Columbia, the City of New York, and four public interest organizations petition for review of a rule issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) entitled “Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks, Model Years 2008- 2011,” 71 Fed. Reg. 17,566 (Apr. 6, 2006) (“Final Rule”) (codified at 49 C.F.R. pt. 533). Pursuant to the Energy P

Do the rights of religious freedom and free speech, as guaranteed in both the federal and the California Constitutions, exempt a medical clinic’s physicians from complying with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation? Our answer is no.

I

This case comes to us after the trial court granted plaintiff’s mo

Appellant Southwest Marine, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granting summary judgment in favor of the United States of America and the Secretary of the Navy. In this appeal, we must determine whether fees incurred by Southwest Marine during its unsuccessful defense of a private party Clean Water Act lawsuit are allowable cos

Marina Point Development Associates, Okon Development Co., Oko Investments, Inc., Northshore Development Associates, L.P., Irving Okovita, Site Design Associates, Inc., Ken Discenza, VDLP Marina Point L.P. and Venwest Marina Point, Inc. (collectively “Marina Point”) appeal the district court’s judgment on the merits in favor of Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of Fawnskin (collect

Appellant Robert Miller is a big fan of NASCAR, attending from three to six events a year at the California Speedway in Fontana. He also happens to be a quadriplegic who uses an electric wheelchair. When the fans immediately in front of Miller stand during the most exciting parts of the race, they block his view of the action.

Appellee California Speedway Corporation (“Speedway”) opened

This appeal concerns the joinder requirements of Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and their effect on litigation brought by an Indian tribe engaged in casino gaming.

The Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community (“Colusa”), a federally recognized Indian tribe, entered into a gaming compact with the State of California in 1999. Colusa brought this a

This case presents the question whether expert testimony may be offered in medical malpractice cases to support a claim brought under the theory of res ipsa loquitur. The trial court ruled that under this Court's opinion in Hasemeier v. Smith, 361 S.W.2d 697 (Mo. banc 1962), an expert witness is not permitted to testify in a res ipsa loquitur case. This means, it concluded, that since medical tes

Appellant Dorothy L. Clark appeals the district court’s1 refusal to grant a declaratory judgment and set aside a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) determination that she converted wetlands in violation of the Swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 3801, 3821-24 (2000). Because the USDA determined she had converted wetlands, Cla

Appellants-Plaintiffs Wayne E. Boyd and Bunker Farms, LLC, by Dean V. Kruse (collectively “Bunker Farms”) appeal a judgment enjoining them from pursuing a quiet title action and ordering DeKalb County officials to issue title of real estate to American Premier Underwriters, Inc. (“APU”), formerly known as Penn Central Corporation.1 We affirm.

ISSUE

Bunker Farms raises one

Donald Horina filed a civil-rights action against the City of Granite City, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that certain provisions of Ordinance No. 7861—the City’s regulation on the manner in which individuals can distribute handbills in public—violated his First Amendment right to distribute religious literature. The district court, however, determined that the entire Ordinance is unconsti

This case is before us on remand from our Supreme Court, which vacated our original opinion and remanded to this Court for reconsideration in light of Washington v Sinai Hospital of Greater Detroit, 478 Mich 412; 733 NW2d 755 (2007), and Braverman v Garden City Hospital, 480 Mich 1159; 746 NW2d 612 (2008). See Verbrugghe v Select Specialty Hospital-Macomb, 481 Mich 874; 748 NW2d 819 (2008).

In 1992, Defendant-Appellee Public Service Company of Oklahoma (“PSO”) used the eminent domain authority granted to it under Oklahoma law to condemn an easement across property owned by Plaintiff-Appellant B. Willis, C.P.A., Inc. (“Willis”). Willis, in turn, invoked remedies available under Oklahoma law, first to challenge, before a state court judge, the necessity for PSO to condemn this

Plaintiffs herein are employees of Kansas City Southern Railroad and their spouses. They contracted with brokers Gregory Hildebrand and Peter Dahlstrom to manage their retirement accounts Alleging fraud and negligence plaintiffs filed a claim against their brokers on August 4 2005 with the Dispute Resolution Division of the National Association of Securities Dealers NASD under its Code of Arbitrat

Appellant, Clear Lake City Water Authority, appeals from a grant of summary judgment favoring appellees, Kirby Lake Development, Ltd., Miter Development Company, L.L.C., and Taylor Lake, Ltd., on appellees' breach of contract causes of action against the Water Authority. Appellees, a group of real estate developers, alleged that the Water Authority breached contractual obligations to place a part

This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of appellees, Eric Six and Alejandro Betancourt. By one issue, appellant Madhavan Pisharodi complains that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment based on res judicata and collateral estoppel. Because Pisharodi failed to attack all the possible grounds for the order granting summary judgment, his two issues are waived. Accordi

Patricia Ann Powers, acting pro se, sued the City of Conroe and a city department, Conroe Animal Control, along with city employee, Lieutenant Wayne McCarty, and the municipal court judge of Conroe, Judge Cates. Pursuant to section 101.106(c) of the Tort Claims Act, the trial court dismissed McCarty and Cates, the individual defendants, from the suit. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.1