Epstein Secrets

set out the basis for its conclusions in such a way to permit meaningful review of its decision. In reviewing similar cases in other circuits, the Richardson court noted that [HN4] " '[d]ismissal typically occurs in cases showing consistently dilatory conduct or the complete failure to take any steps oth

IDENTIAL DB-SDNY-0020037 EFTA_OOI 67781 EFTA01295878 Page 19 2014 V.I. LEXIS 45, *; 61 V.I. 13, ** expressly define a marital homestead, both the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the Appellate Division of the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands have interpreted § 2305(a), (c) to hold

n information and bolsters the conclusion that Fisher's tax return is entitled to protection from disclosure by the Government in this action. See Richards I Stephens. 118 F.R.D. 338, 339 (S.D.N.Y.1988) § 6103 is intended to protect the confidentiality of taxpayers' returns by " regulat[ing] ... discl

ier's Office on 4/14/98. (emil) (Entered: 04/14/1998) 05/21/1998 50 ORDER, Fisher seeks a stay of entry of judgment pending appeal of my ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Considering the factors set forth in this order in light of the facts of this case I conclude that a stay is not warranted

$2674. That provision is most naturally under- stood to make the United States liable in the same way as a private individual at any given time. See Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1962). Such "same as" provisions dot the statute books, and federal and state courts commonly read them to mandate

erns the immunity of international organizations. The International Finance Corporation is therefore not absolutely immune from suit. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_0