Cases

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-19-00058-CV HEB GROCERY COMPANY L.P., Appellant v. Maria Del Rosario DEL CID,

Case: 23-1367 Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 05/07/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ INGENICO INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee INGENICO CORP., INGENICO GROUP S.A., Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees v. IOENGINE, LLC, Defendant/Counter-Claimant-Appellant ______________________

—In an action to recover the down-payment made pursuant to a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated April 20,1995, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and directed the release of the downpayment to her. *889Ordered that the order is reversed, o

McCarthy, J.P. Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Aulisi, J.), entered April 26, 2016 in Saratoga County, which, among other things, granted a motion by defendant *842 Fisher Scientific Company, LLC for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, (2) from an order of said

CURRIER, J.A.D. *579*1096In this products liability case arising out of exposure to asbestos, we consider anew whether a manufacturer has a duty to warn about the risk of harm from exposure to asbestos-containing replacement parts integral to the func

ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND URSULA UNGARO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Remand, D.E. 37, filed on April 14, 2016. The Motion is now fully briefed and ripe for disposition. THE COURT has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. B

Case: 16-60604 Document: 00516516011 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 20, 2022

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, and for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J), entered July 24, 2006, which, upon an order of the same court (Polizzi, J.), dated January 25, 2006, inter alia, denying those branches of her motion which were to strike the answer of the defendant Prime Design Realty, Inc., pursuant to C

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-1099 DONALD NICODEMUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, Defendant-Appellee and STATE OF INDIANA, Intervenor-A

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-1099 DONALD NICODEMUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, Defendant-Appellee and STATE OF INDIANA, Intervenor-A

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-1099 DONALD NICODEMUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, Defendant-Appellee and STATE OF INDIANA, Intervenor-A

USCA11 Case: 21-14181 Document: 59-1 Date Filed: 07/25/2025 Page: 1 of 36 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-14181 ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-2010 ___________________________ Emmanuel Dwah Tiah Petitioner v. Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States

ORDER STEVEN D. MERRYDAY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The FTC sues (Doc, 22) Nicholas Con-gleton and others under Section 5 of the FTC Act for engaging in false or deceptive advertising. The FTC alleges that Congle-ton published or caused the publication of (1) false or unsubstantiated efficacy claims, (2) false establishment claims, (3) deceptive testimonials, and (4) deceptive news websites. The FTC

USCA11 Case: 23-11729 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 07/21/2025 Page: 1 of 43 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-11729 ____________________ JOSEPH JIMENEZ,

OPINION AND ORDER SALVADOR E. CASELLAS, Senior District Judge. Before the Court are the defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket # 6), the plaintiffs opposition thereto (Docket # 9), and the defendants’ reply. Docket # 14. After reviewing the filings and the applicable law, the defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Factual and Procedural Background This

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-1042 JOSEPH BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JEFFREY L. KEMP, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-1042 JOSEPH BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JEFFREY L. KEMP, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-1042 JOSEPH BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JEFFREY L. KEMP, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-1042 JOSEPH BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JEFFREY L. KEMP, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the