Cases

Andrews, Judge. While William Oursler, Jr., was a social guest at Robert and Peggy Thompson’s house, he was standing on a wooden deck attached to the side of the house when the deck suddenly detached from the house and collapsed. Oursler sued the Thompsons claiming that injuries he suffered when the deck collapsed were proximately caused by the Thompsons’ negligent failure to inspect and maintain the deck in a safe condition

OPINION & ORDER KATHERINE B. FORREST, United States District Judge This is an enforcement action brought by the New York office of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) against defendants Anthony J. Thompson Jr., Jay Fung and Eric Van Nguyen— three alleged penny stock promoters—and three relief defendants. (ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 9-13.) The SEC alleges that, from November 2009 to September 2010

May, Judge. Joshua Thompson pled guilty to Level 6 felony domestic battery, 1 Level 6 felony battery with moderate bodily injury, 2 and Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury. 3 The

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Jade Thompson ("Plaintiff") sues the Marietta Education Association ("the Union") and Marietta Board of Education ("the Board") (collectively, "Defendants") under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She argues that Ohio Revised Code § 4117.04 -05 is unconstitutional and moves for

PER CURIAM: Plaintiffs, male inmates of the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”), brought this suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq., to challenge the ADOC’s “short-hair policy.” The short-hair policy forbids Plaintiffs from wearing their hair unshorn in accordance with the di

SCHLESINGER, District Judge: Plaintiffs-Appellants (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) are male inmates in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”). They wish to wear their hair unshorn in accordance with the dictates of their Native American religion, but an ADOC policy forbids them from doing so. Plaintiffs brought this suit against the ADOC and several other defen

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 16a0174p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ MELINDA THOMPSON, Individually and as ┐ Administrator of the Estate of Greg

SC: 129143, COA: 251588, Roscommon CC: 02-004332-FC. On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 2, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. Kathleen Meehan sued Officer Scott Thompson for abridging her Fourth Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for battery and false imprisonment under Minnesota state law. Thompson asserted the defenses of qualified and official immunity and moved for summary judgment. The district court denied Thompson’s motion, and we reverse and remand. <

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN, United States District Judge Plaintiffs are twenty-six retired flight attendants who filed a five-count Amended Complaint, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and tortious interference with contract against defendants American Airlines Group, Inc., and American Airlines, Inc., (

(2008) Zelma HINDMAN, Plaintiff, v. Donald THOMPSON, Creek County, and The State of Oklahoma, Defendants. No. 05-CV-306-TCK-PJC. United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma. March 4, 2008. OPINION AND ORDER TERENCE KERN, District Judge. Before the Court is the State of Oklahoma's ("State") Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 37), Supplem

SCHLESINGER, District Judge: Plaintiffs-Appellants (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) are male inmates in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”). They wish to wear their hair unshorn in accordance with the dictates of their Native American religion, but an ADOC policy forbids them from doing so. Plaintiffs brought this suit against the ADOC and several other def

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Mark Gregory Thompson and Jane Page Thompson, individually and behalf of all those similarly situated, Appellants, v. Clay Killian, in his official capacity as Aiken County Administrator, Jason Goings, in his official capacity as Treasurer of Aiken County, Aiken County Council, Aiken County, City of Aiken, Aiken Council, and Stuart Bedenbaugh, in his official capacity as City Manager of Aiken, Respondents. Appellate Case

43 S.W.3d 516 (2000) STATE of Tennessee, v. Paul Andrew THOMPSON. Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, at Knoxville. October 12, 2000. Application for Permission to Appeal Denied March 5, 2001. *518 Douglas A. Trant, Knoxville, TN, for appellant, Paul Andrew Thompson. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Mark

Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents two questions. The first is procedural: Did ACT Pipe and Supply, Inc., in defending a favorable judgment notwithstanding the jury's verdict, successfully raise a "cross-point" in the court of appeals that preserved an alternative argument proscribing the jury's original verdict? We say yes-ACT did not formally label it

On January 27, 2000, Nancy W. Thompson and her husband John Michael Thompson sued Michael Miller, alleging that Miller had negligently or wantonly caused his vehicle to collide with the vehicle occupied by the Thompsons, thereby causing Mrs. Thompson to suffer personal injuries; Mr. Thompson's claim was a derivative claim alleging a loss of consortium. The Thompsons also sued State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, alleging that Miller was an underinsured motorist and that Sta

949 F.2d 401 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order. Se

173 F.Supp.2d 368 (2001) Lee Anne THOMPSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. John FARE, Jr., et al., Defendants. Nos. CIV.A. 01-223, CIV.A. 01-224. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. November 21, 2001. *369 Cathleen M. Devlin, Saul, Ewing, Remick and Saul, Philadelphia, PA, Daniel S. Weinstock, Shrager, Spivey, Sachs & We

JUSTICE HOOD delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶ 1 At issue in this case are insurance proceeds owed to Petitioners Rosalin Rogers and Mark Thompson because of a botched property investment orchestrated by their broker-dealer, United Securities Alliance. Some ten years into this seemingly interminable litigation, no one now questions that United's insurer, Respondent Catlin Insuranc

238 F.Supp.2d 236 (2002) BARR LABORATORIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. Tommy G. THOMPSON, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 02-1867(EGS). United States District Court, District of Columbia. December 18, 2002. *237 *238 Andrew E. Clark, Esquire, Office of Consumer Litigation, United States Department of