Euler

On April 10, Adamiak filed his petition. On April 16, the Court created a docket.

They're new. ISRA insists that it hasn't provided its membership list to marketers, but instead sends the emails on their behalf. ISRA has also said that the spam is supposed to be sent from "sponsors@isra.org" (because people complained that spam was sent from "alerts@isra.org," the previously regular address) and that regular announcements are still supposed to be sent from "alerts@isra.org," but apparently ISRA's email software can't handle more than one from-address, so now everything comes from "sponsors@isra.org" instead.

On April 13, the defendants responded to the complaint. On April 15, the judge presumed a bench trial, tentatively set it for sometime in August, and set the following schedule: 05/27: scheduling hearing 07/15: final pretrial conference

On April 16 in appellate court, the ATF filed a motion to dismiss its appeal. The court granted the motion. Just as a reminder: the ATF was appealing the district court's preliminary injunction (which only applied in TX) against the ATF "engaged in the business" regulation. The trial continues in district court, where several states are intervening to defend the ATF rule, because they don't think the Trump DOJ will defend the rule there. (They're probably right. The show's not quite over yet.)

On April 7, the jury returned a verdict of guilty for the resisting charge. On April 14, the judge set a sentencing hearing for July 9.

720 ILGA 5/24-1.9(a)(1)(C)(i)

On April 8 in appellate court, the court recaptioned the case FPC v Blanche.

On April 10, Westforth filed its reply.

It's better for LE to have a flame thrower and not need it than for LE to oppose the bill, of course.

There are no other details released, but obviously a CCL is not required inside one's home.

On April 2 in appellate court, Atkinson asked for an extension to file his brief. The court granted the extension and set the following schedule: 5/01: Atkinson's brief due 6/01: government's response due 6/22: Atkinson's reply, if any, due

On March 31 in appellate court, Mathews asked to extend the deadline her briefs. On April 1, the court granted the extension and set the following schedule: 05/04: plaintiff's reply brief and cross-appeal response brief due 05/26: defendants' cross-appeal reply brief due

On April 2 at a status hearing, the judge set the following schedule: 4/30: defendants' response due 5/14: plaintiff's response to response (seriously, that's how it's stated) due 6/30: fact discovery closed & status hearing

On April 4 (not a typo), Kuhlman filed his response. Defendants have 14 days to reply.

On April 3 at the status hearing, Zahareas (or his counsel) failed to appear. The state moved to reconsider the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The judge set the following schedule: 4/10: plaintiff's response due 4/17: defendant's reply due