Back to Network
6
Shared Docs
6
Same-Page
6 / 6
Mentions
Document Mentions (6 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
ugh the review of potential or abstract disputes,' Digital Props., Inc. v. City of Plantation, 121 F.3d 586, 589 (11th Cir.1997)." United States v. Rivera, 613 F.3d 1046, 1050 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001) ("The ripeness doctrine prevent[s] the courts
ues sufficiently defined and concrete, to permit effective decisionmaking by the court."' In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir. 1995)). When evaluating whether a claim is ripe, a court considers: "(1) the fitness of the issues for judicial dec
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
h the review of potential or abstract disputes,' Digital Props., Inc. v. City of Plantation, 121 F.3d 586, 589 (I I th Cir.1997)." United States v. Rivera, 613 F.3d 1046, 1050 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1278 (I I th Cir. 2001) ("The ripeness doctrine prevent[s] the cour
ues sufficiently defined and concrete, to permit effective decisionmaking by the court."' In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir. 1995)). When evaluating whether a claim is ripe, a court considers: "(1) the fitness of the issues for judicial dec
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
h the review of potential or abstract disputes,' Digital Props., Inc. v. City of Plantation, 121 F.3d 586, 589 (I I th Cir.1997)." United States v. Rivera, 613 F.3d 1046, 1050 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1278 (I I th Cir. 2001) ("The ripeness doctrine prevent[s] the cour
ues sufficiently defined and concrete, to permit effective decisionmaking by the court."' In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir. 1995)). When evaluating whether a claim is ripe, a court considers: "(1) the fitness of the issues for judicial dec
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
h the review of potential or abstract disputes,' Digital Props., Inc. v. City of Plantation, 121 F.3d 586, 589 (I I th Cir.1997)." United States v. Rivera, 613 F.3d 1046, 1050 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1278 (I I th Cir. 2001) ("The ripeness doctrine prevent[s] the cour
ues sufficiently defined and concrete, to permit effective decisionmaking by the court."' In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir. 1995)). When evaluating whether a claim is ripe, a court considers: "(1) the fitness of the issues for judicial dec
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
ugh the review of potential or abstract disputes,' Digital Props., Inc. v. City of Plantation, 121 F.3d 586, 589 (11th Cir.1997)." United States v. Rivera, 613 F.3d 1046, 1050 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001) ("The ripeness doctrine prevent[s] the courts
ues sufficiently defined and concrete, to permit effective decisionmaking by the court."' In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir. 1995)). When evaluating whether a claim is ripe, a court considers: "11) the fitness of the issues for judicial dec
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
ugh the review of potential or abstract disputes,' Digital Props., Inc. v. City of Plantation, 121 F.3d 586, 589 (11th Cir.1997)." United States v. Rivera, 613 F.3d 1046, 1050 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001) ("The ripeness doctrine prevent[s] the courts
ues sufficiently defined and concrete, to permit effective decisionmaking by the court."' In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir. 1995)). When evaluating whether a claim is ripe, a court considers: "11) the fitness of the issues for judicial dec
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (144)
Entities connected to both Rivera and Cheffer v. Reno
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON79 w/ Rivera·6 w/ Cheffer
United States
LOCATION47 w/ Rivera·6 w/ Cheffer
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON43 w/ Rivera·6 w/ Cheffer
Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATION39 w/ Rivera·6 w/ Cheffer
ET
Emmy Taylor
PERSON34 w/ Rivera·6 w/ Cheffer
Bradley Edwards
PERSON32 w/ Rivera·4 w/ Cheffer
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATION32 w/ Rivera·2 w/ Cheffer
the Southern District
LOCATION27 w/ Rivera·6 w/ Cheffer
FBI
ORGANIZATION25 w/ Rivera·6 w/ Cheffer
JD
Jane Doe
PERSON25 w/ Rivera·6 w/ Cheffer
TH
Thompson
PERSON26 w/ Rivera·2 w/ Cheffer
MW
Martin Weinberg
PERSON26 w/ Rivera·2 w/ Cheffer
George Mitchell
PERSON26 w/ Rivera·2 w/ Cheffer
Atlanta
LOCATION20 w/ Rivera·6 w/ Cheffer
Colorado
LOCATION24 w/ Rivera·2 w/ Cheffer
A. Marie Villafana
PERSON19 w/ Rivera·5 w/ Cheffer
Kenneth Marra
PERSON17 w/ Rivera·6 w/ Cheffer
Alexander Acosta
PERSON16 w/ Rivera·6 w/ Cheffer
New York
LOCATION19 w/ Rivera·2 w/ Cheffer
GA
Gardner
PERSON15 w/ Rivera·6 w/ Cheffer