Cases

931 F.Supp. 662 (1996) Michael L. FRITCHIE and R & R Plastering, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. ALUMAX INC., Defendant. Stephen A. ROTHWELL, Plaintiff, v. ALUMAX, INC., Defendant. Nos. 4:CV94-3220, 4:CV94-3219. United States District Court, D. Nebraska. July 12, 1996. *663 *664 Brenda Sp

COX, Circuit Judge: Aumax Inc. appeals a tax court decision concluding that Aumax owes about $129,-000,000 in taxes for the years 1981-86. The tax court’s decision rested on its ruling that for the years 1984-86 Aumax could not join the consolidated return of one of its shareholders, AMAX Inc., under Internal Revenue Code §§ 1501 and 1504(a). We affirm. I.

OPINION2 Chiechi, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in petitioners’ Federal income tax: TYE Deficiency Dec. 31, 1981 . $5,663,086 Dec. 31, 1983 . 11,454,565 Dec. 31, 1984 . 40,433,142

[ PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 98-8005 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Opinion Restani, Judge: Defendant moves to strike Court of International Trade (CIT) Rule 41(a) notices of voluntary dismissal filed in these actions. CIT Rule 41(a) states that dismissal may be noticed by plaintiff without consent or permission of the court any time before an answer is filed. Following oral argument on January 23,1991, the court denied the motion to strike the CIT Rule 41(a) dismissals.

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT WEIGEL, District Judge. Defendant moves the Court for an order dismissing plaintiff’s case, or, in the alternative, for an order granting summary judgment in defendant’s favor. The Court has considered the briefs, arguments of counsel and the entire record in this matter. Prior to its filing of this suit, plaintiff, U.S. Aluminum Corp.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

157 S.W.3d 236 (2004) ALUMAX FOILS, INC., Appellant, v. Gregory F.X. DALY, Respondent. No. ED 84365. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four. December 14, 2004. Application for Transfer Denied February 9, 2005. Application for Transfer Denied April 5, 2005. Thomas L. Caradonna, Douglas M. Nieder, Lewis, Rice &

IRVING, J., for the Court. ¶ 1. Alumax Extrusions appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of DeSoto County, affirming the order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission which awarded Paul Hankins, a former employee of Alu-max, permanent partial disability benefits. The sole issue presented by Alumax is whether the Commission’s finding — that Hankins had suffered permanent disability to the extent that he was

CANBY, Circuit Judge: U.S. Aluminum Corporation sued Alumax, Inc. for malicious prosecution. The district court granted Alumax’s motion for summary judgment on the ground of collateral estoppel, 636 F.Supp. 441, and Aluminum appealed. We review the district court’s entry of summary judgment de novo. Fagner v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 641, 543 (9th Cir.1985). We reve

380 F.Supp.2d 723 (2005) Terry MARTIN and Dick Villanueva, Plaintiffs, v. ALUMAX OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC., Defendant. No. CUV,A,2:03-3878-SB. United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division. June 24, 2005. *724 *725 A. Christopher Potts, Hitchcock and Potts, Charleston, SC,

973 S.W.2d 488 (1998) Thomas CALLAHAN, Appellant, v. ALUMAX FOILS, INC., Respondent. No. 72908. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three. May 12, 1998. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Denied August 6, 1998. *489 Thomas J. Gregory, Mogab & Hughes, St. Louis, for appellant. Joh

BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge. Apex International Alloys, Inc. (Apex), appellant-defendant, appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict awarding Benjamin Malik, appellee-plaintiff, $50,-000.00 in actual damages and $75,000.00 in punitive damages. We affirm. Plaintiff began working for Apex at its metal foundry in Checotah, Oklahoma, in October, 1978.

PER CURIAM. The JCC’s order dismissing the claim contains no finding of Claimant’s wilful noncompliance with a previous order, which compelled his attendance at independent medical examinations. Failure to include specific written findings of fact of wilfulness in the order of dismissal constitutes reversible error. Townsend v. Feinberg, 659 So.2d 1218, 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (citing Commonwealth Fed. Sav. &am;

737 So.2d 416 (1998) ALUMAX EXTRUSIONS, INC., Self-Insured, Appellant, v. Larry WRIGHT, Appellee. No. 97-CC-00925 COA. Court of Appeals of Mississippi. December 30, 1998. Rehearing Denied March 23, 1999. Certiorari Denied June 17, 1999. *417 Joseph T. Wilkins, III, Jackson, Attorney for Appellant

CRANDALL, Judge. Plaintiffs1 are industrial and commercial enterprises conducting business within the City of St. Louis (hereinafter City). They appeal from the judgment of the trial court upholding the validity of a City ordinance imposing a license fee of 11 percent of the cost of natural gas they purchased from suppliers outside the City but used within the City.2 We

939 S.W.2d 907 (1997) ALUMAX FOILS, INC., et al., Appellants, v. The CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Respondents. No. 79019. Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc. February 25, 1997. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing March 25, 1997. *909 Louis R. Mills, Robert C. Johnson, Diana M. Schmidt, St. Louis, for Appellants.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

OPINION SENTER, Chief Judge. Plaintiff Everson D. Smith brings this action alleging that the defendants discharged him without just cause and subsequently failed to provide him with adequate representation during the course of related administrative and arbitration proceedings. This cause is presently before the court on motions by the defendants for summary judgment.