ARGUMENT. The parties will not cite exhaustive arbitral jurisprudence but will normally refer to Xxxxx & Xxxxxx or Xxxxxx for summary purposes.
ARGUMENT. (a) argument of the complaining Party;
ARGUMENT. Oral argument or briefs on a motion may be ordered by the As- sistant Administrator or the adminis- trative law judge.
ARGUMENT. I. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court reviews the district court's granting of the preliminary injunction under an "abuse of discretion standard." XXXXXX X. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RET. HEALTH SYS. OF OHIO, 160 F.3d 310, 312 (6th Cir. 1998). Such injunctions "will seldom be disturbed unless the district court relied upon clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applied the governing law, or used an erroneous legal standard. ID. (citing BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD MUT. OF OHIO V. BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD ASS'N, 110 F.3d 318, 322 (6th Cir. 1997)). Appellate courts afford district courts' decisions to grant preliminary injunctions "great deference," BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD MUT. OF OHIO, 110 F.3d at 322, and "will reverse a district court's balancing of the equities only in the rarest of circumstances." XXXXXX, 160 F.3d at 313. As shown below, the district court properly granted SPG's motion for a preliminary injunction.
ARGUMENT. 21 The 2015 Decision should be upheld because it properly addressed the two key issues that
ARGUMENT. A. The Award of Permanent Periodic Alimony is to Be Based on the Needs of the Recipient Spouse and the Ability of the Payor Spouse to Pay. In Welsh x. Xxxxx, 35 So.2d 6 (Fla. 1948) the court held that the award of permanent alimony is based upon the “necessities of the wife and the financial ability of the husband to supply the necessity.” See Welsh x. Xxxxx, 35 So.2d 6, 9 (Fla. 1948). However, in 1978, an amendment to the alimony statute set forth numerous factors to consider when determining the amount of an alimony award. § 61.08(2), Fla. Stat. (1978). These factors include: a) The standard of living established during the marriage;
ARGUMENT. The Trial Judge’s Decision is Owed Deference
ARGUMENT. The Proposed Amended Settlement Agreement (“PASA”) should not be finally approved because, as discussed in Part I, the class contemplated by the PASA does not meet the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the following reasons: (1) the handful of representative plaintiffs fail to adequately represent the interests of the numerous affected parties; (2) class members were not provided with sufficient notice of the settlement; and (3) dissatisfied class members cannot effectively challenge the provisions of the settlement while protecting their own interests. As discussed in Part II, the amendments to the PASA fail to resolve many of the issues raised in previous objections, and instead create new problems, including: (1) creating an Unclaimed Works Fiduciary without providing effective oversight; (2) mandating a convoluted dispute resolution model that complicates rather than facilitates the resolution of disputes; and (3) redistributing rights among classes of “Rightsholders” without consideration for preexisting contractual relationships.
ARGUMENT. The British campaign against the slave trade fundamentally changed Sierra Leone’s relationship with the Atlantic world. As the slave trade entered its final phase in the 19th century, the Sierra Leone estuary was transformed into Britain’s main base against illegal slaving activity. The combined pressures from the British navy and the land-based Freetown settlement brought major changes to the organization of the slave trade along the Sierra Leone coast. To avoid detection from naval cruisers, slave dealers moved their operations into the swampy creeks in southern Sierra Leone, which were harder for the vessels to patrol. As a result, Sherbro and Gallinas were drawn directly into the export trade, becoming major centers for slave embarkation after 1807. The growing slave trade bound these emerging ports tightly to the Cuban sugar industry and infused the ports with Spanish people and cultural influences. Over the first sixty years of the 19th century, a diaspora of Spanish slave dealers settled on the Sherbro and Gallinas coast, bringing new trade goods which they circulated throughout southern Sierra Leone. Changes in the coastal organization of slave exports transformed the relationship between southern Sierra Leone and its hinterland. While the pre-1807 transatlantic trade drew slaves from a catchment area that stretched deep into the Upper Guinea interior, a drop in slave prices in the 19th century resulted in a contraction of the slaving frontier, concentrating the areas from which slaves came to regions nearer to the littoral. As the volume of the Gallinas and Sherbro trade increased in the 1820s, the slave trade continued to feed primarily on peoples within about 60 miles of the coast. The first half of the 19th century thus saw southern Sierra Leone’s slaving ports put increasing pressure on the peoples living on their northeastern frontier. For southern Sierra Leoneans who remained on the continent, the abolition period opened large new markets for the agricultural goods that they produced. Both the slave trade and colonialism concentrated people along the Sierra Leone littoral in numbers previously unmatched. Freetown’s population reached an estimated 15,000 individuals by the early 1820s. Slave factories, though not as large as the British colony, often held thousands of captives in barracoons while they awaited shipment. Once they were boarded onto a transatlantic vessel, slaves also required provisions for the voyage across the Atlantic. Few s...
ARGUMENT. A. The Department Should Resolve the Current Dispute Between GNAPs and Verizon Regarding the Meaning and Effect of Section 5.7.2.3 of the Rhode Island Agreement in Connection With its Review of the Rhode Island Agreement. The substance of the dispute between GNAPs and Verizon MA is whether the language of section 5.7.2.3 of the Rhode Island Agreement would entitle GNAPs to reciprocal compensation for ISP-bound traffic in Massachusetts after May 19, 1999 – the date of the Department’s decision in D.T.E. 97-116-C. Verizon Massachusetts believes that the Commission’s previous reciprocal compensation decisions directly address this issue and make clear that the adoption by GNAPs of the Rhode Island Agreement in Massachusetts does not entitle GNAPs to receive reciprocal compensation from Verizon for ISP-bound traffic. In its March 26, 2002 Letter to the Department, accompanying the Rhode Isla nd Agreement, Verizon MA specifically requested that the Department: issue a decision clarifying that Section 5.7.2.3 of the Rhode Island Agreement shall not be construed to require that Verizon Massachusetts pay GNAPs reciprocal compensation for ISP-bound traffic in Massachusetts after May 19, 1999 and that Verizon Massachusetts’ sole obligation to GNAPs under the adopted Rhode Island Agreement is to pay GNAPs reciprocal compensation in accordance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Department’s reciprocal compensation decisions – Order Nos.
