Legal Opinion
Bannum, Inc. v. District of Columbia
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided March 30, 2006No. MA. 05-858 JDBPublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
BATES, District Judge.
Pending before the Court in this civil action is the application of plaintiff Ban-num, Inc., for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to prevent defendant the District of Columbia from “taking any action to prevent or hinder Bannum from operating its [Community Correction Center (“CCC”) ] facility at 2210 Adams Place, N.E.,” in Washington, D.C. 1 See PL’s Mem. in Supp. of Renewed Mot. for TRO at 8. The immediate impetus behind this application is an order issued by the District of Columbia Superior Court on March 23, 2006, (hereinafter “Order to Vacate”) that…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Powers v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Youngin's Auto Body v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Youngin's Auto Body v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
- Lewis v. Senior JudgesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- Angelica R. Untalan v. Warren A. StanleyDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2021
- Doe v. County of San DiegoDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2021
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.