Back to Network
7
Shared Docs
7
Same-Page
7 / 7
Mentions
Document Mentions (7 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
orida. 12 EFTA00100349 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 14 of 20 jurisdiction to hear the case.")); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1415 (11th Cir. 1994) ("The question of ripeness `goes to whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.") (quoting Gre
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 prevents] the courts
1574 n.7 (11th Cir. 1989) ("IRlipeness goes to whether the district court had subject matter 12 EFTA00205165 jurisdiction to hear the case.")); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1415 (11th Cir. 1994) ("The question of ripeness `goes to whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.'") (quoting Gr
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
ain the possible filing of federal charges by that office in the Southern District of Florida. 12 EFTA00208806 jurisdiction to hear the case.")); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1415 (11th Cir. 1994) ("The question of ripeness `goes to whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.") (quoting Gre
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
orida. 12 EFTA00795162 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 14 of 20 jurisdiction to hear the case.")); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1415 (11th Cir. 1994) ("The question of ripeness `goes to whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.") (quoting Gre
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
orida. 12 EFTA00799486 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 14 of 20 jurisdiction to hear the case.")); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1415 (11th Cir. 1994) ("The question of ripeness `goes to whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.") (quoting Gre
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
EFTA00076111 Case 9:08-O,a89713f9gAP804Meafulfilt oaaanernaurd EnbeiEILISMIDIS9(eFlatieliVibla5 Page 14 of 20 jurisdiction to hear the case.")); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1415 (11th Cir. 1994) ("The question of ripeness `goes to whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction."') (quoting Gr
Sponsored
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
EFTA00095914 Case 9:08-O,a89713f9gAP804Meafulfilt oaaanernaurd EnbeiEILISMIDIS9(eFlatieliVibla5 Page 14 of 20 jurisdiction to hear the case.")); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1415 (11th Cir. 1994) ("The question of ripeness `goes to whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction."') (quoting Gr
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (144)
Entities connected to both Rivera and Reahard v. Lee County
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON79 w/ Rivera·7 w/ Reahard
United States
LOCATION47 w/ Rivera·7 w/ Reahard
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON43 w/ Rivera·7 w/ Reahard
Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATION39 w/ Rivera·7 w/ Reahard
ET
Emmy Taylor
PERSON34 w/ Rivera·7 w/ Reahard
Bradley Edwards
PERSON32 w/ Rivera·5 w/ Reahard
the Southern District
LOCATION27 w/ Rivera·7 w/ Reahard
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATION32 w/ Rivera·2 w/ Reahard
JD
Jane Doe
PERSON25 w/ Rivera·7 w/ Reahard
FBI
ORGANIZATION25 w/ Rivera·6 w/ Reahard
TH
Thompson
PERSON26 w/ Rivera·2 w/ Reahard
George Mitchell
PERSON26 w/ Rivera·2 w/ Reahard
MW
Martin Weinberg
PERSON26 w/ Rivera·2 w/ Reahard
Atlanta
LOCATION20 w/ Rivera·7 w/ Reahard
Colorado
LOCATION24 w/ Rivera·2 w/ Reahard
A. Marie Villafana
PERSON19 w/ Rivera·5 w/ Reahard
Kenneth Marra
PERSON17 w/ Rivera·7 w/ Reahard
GA
Gardner
PERSON15 w/ Rivera·7 w/ Reahard
Alexander Acosta
PERSON16 w/ Rivera·6 w/ Reahard
New York
LOCATION19 w/ Rivera·2 w/ Reahard