So, what happens when someone purposely poisons items another human being uses and then it is taken to federal or circuit court?
My friend, poisoning people through their water, their air or through items they touch is a first degree felony. OR yknow through FOOD AND DRINK SERVED TO THEM WHILE IN THE COMPANY OF VERIZON FRIENDS (LOL HOW MANY TIMES??) AT TAMPA AND OTHER RESTAURANTS???????
Water poisoning gets A LOT OF ATTENTION.
TAINTED WATER IN TAMPA.
It's time to put Tampa on the hotseat for what it has done to it's citizens.
Gross murder.
PIGS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Results
1.
Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Serv., No. 06-15371, No. 06-15436, No. 06-15455, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, 535 F.3d 1058; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16860; 38 ELR 20208, December 11, 2007, Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California, August 8, 2008, Filed, US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Nation v. U. S. Forest Serv., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4206 (U.S., June 8, 2009)
2.
Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Serv., No. 06-15371, No. 06-15436, No. 06-15455 , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, 479 F.3d 1024; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 5710; 37 ELR 20062, September 14, 2006, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California , March 12, 2007, Filed , Vacated by, Rehearing, en banc, granted by Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Serv., 506 F.3d 717, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 24264 (9th Cir., 2007)
3.
Stanley v. Page, No. 00-3234, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, 44 Fed. Appx. 13; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 17737, August 20, 2002 *, Submitted* After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34 (a)(2)., August 20, 2002, Decided , RULES OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT. , Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied November 15, 2002, Reported at: 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23793.
4.
AlliedSignal, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, No. 98-15901, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, 182 F.3d 692; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 14204; 48 ERC (BNA) 1961; 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5097; 99 Daily Journal DAR 6595; 29 ELR 21312, May 13, 1999, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California , June 28, 1999, Filed
5.
9910 Richmond Highway Pshp. v. Electric Equip. Corp., No. 91-1546, No. 91-1577, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 24896, July 6, 1992, Argued , September 29, 1992, Decided , RULES OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT. , Reported in Table Case Format at: 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 38404.
6.
Ohio Oil Co. v. Elliott, No. 5716, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT, 254 F.2d 832; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5399; 9 Oil & Gas Rep. 219, April 28, 1958
7.
International Paper Co. v. Busby, No. 13149, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT, 182 F.2d 790; 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2868, June 16, 1950
8.
Barrett v. Ambient Pressure Diving, Ltd., Civil No. 06-cv-240-SM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 2008 DNH 172; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70471, September 16, 2008, Decided, NOT FOR PUBLICATION, Motion denied by Barrett v. Ambient Pressure Diving, Ltd., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96075 (D.N.H., 2008)
9.
Wallace v. Nalley, 9:03-CV-0507, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22176, March 20, 2008, Decided, March 20, 2008, Filed
10.
Morgan v. Mississippi, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07cv15-MTP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, HATTIESBURG DIVISION, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107172, February 14, 2008, Decided, February 14, 2008, Filed, Injunction denied by Morgan v. Mississippi, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81113 (S.D. Miss., Aug. 27, 2008)
11.
Sierra Club v. Strock, CASE NO. 03-23427-CIV-HOEVELER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, 495 F. Supp. 2d 1188; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53604; 65 ERC (BNA) 2082; 37 ELR 20188; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 995, July 13, 2007, Decided, July 13, 2007, Entered
12.
Perondi v. Schriro, No. CV 06-2833-PHX-ROS-JRI , UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31027, April 25, 2007, Decided , April 26, 2007, Filed
13.
Bellezza v. Fischer, 05 CIV. 98 (DLC) , UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76962, October 24, 2006, Decided , October 24, 2006, Filed , Summary judgment denied by Bellezza v. Fischer, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51452 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2007)
14.
Swartz v. Beach, Case No. 02-CV-044B , UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1239; 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19272; 56 ERC (BNA) 1311, October 4, 2002, Decided , October 7, 2002, Filed
15.
In re Am. Commer. Lines, LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-252 c/w 00-2967 c/w 00-3147 SECTION:"N", UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10116, May 28, 2002, Decided , May 28, 2002, Filed
16.
Nash v. DeTella, No. 00 C 2784 , UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25901, September 26, 2001, Decided
17.
Pritchett v. Page, NO. 99 C 8174, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11559, August 2, 2000, Decided , August 9, 2000, Docketed
18.
Carroll v. DeTella, No. 99 C 2443, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145, January 7, 2000, Decided , January 10, 2000, Docketed
19.
United States v. Iron Mt. Mines, CIV-S-91-768 DFL JFM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 987 F. Supp. 1263; 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19494; 45 ERC (BNA) 1709; 140 Oil & Gas Rep. 187; 28 ELR 21133, October 28, 1997, Decided , October 28, 1997, Filed
20.
Baker v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 86-4974(JEI), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11600, August 5, 1996, Decided , August 5, 1996, FILED
21.
Davidson v. Coughlin, 88-CV-0646, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 920 F. Supp. 305; 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3522, March 16, 1996, Decided , March 19, 1996, FILED
22.
United States v. Iron Mt. Mines, CIV-S-91-768 DFL, CIV-S-91-1167 DFL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 881 F. Supp. 1432; 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4499; 41 ERC (BNA) 1042; 25 ELR 21275, March 31, 1995, Decided , March 31, 1995, Filed
23.
Wade v. Farley, No. 3:93cv0619 AS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA, SOUTH BEND DIVISION, 869 F. Supp. 1365; 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16484, August 3, 1994, Decided
24.
Seaphus v. Lilly, No. 87 C 10085, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION, 691 F. Supp. 127; 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6765, July 6, 1988, Decided
25.
Penick & Ford, Ltd. v. Corn Products Refining Co., No. 6503, District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D., 52 F.2d 668; 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1673, July 16, 1931
Search Terms
[(tainted water)](48) View search details
Search Details
You searched for: (tainted water)