Cases

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 15, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D15-54 Lower Tribunal No. 09-89718 ________________ Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROANNE L. MANN, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: In this declaratory judgment action, plaintiff-insurers seek, inter alia, a determination as to whether a series of liability insurance policies, issued to defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”) more than three decades ago, obligate the plaintiff-insurers to reimburse Amtrak for costs incurred in connection

944 F.Supp. 333 (1996) BURLINGTON, VT, CITY OF; Lloyd's London Underwriters Similarly Situated Subscribing to Airport Owners' and Operators' Liability Insurance Policy No. ISL 3890 and Particularly Designated by Respective Syndicate Nos. 800, 960, 998, 53, 48, 117, 270, 97, 619, 814, 738, 1,054, 545, 295, 402, 312, 331, 310, 850, 256, 448, 925 and 581, Underwriters listed individually as Aviation and General Insurance Company Limited; Prudential Assuranc

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROANNE L. MANN, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE In this declaratory judgment action, plaintiff-insurers seek, inter alia, a determination as to whether a series of liability *148insurance policies, issued to defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”) more than three decades ago, obliga

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROANNE L. MANN, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff London market insurance companies (“LMI”) seek to compel defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”) to re-produce two documents used by LMI as deposition exhibits that Amtrak has since “clawed back” after asserting attorney-client privilege and work-product protections. For the following reasons, LMI’s motio

COFFEY, Circuit Judge. On January 1, 1986, Judge James J. Kra-jewski discharged the appellant Lloyd Fisher from his position as an assistant public defender in Lake County, Indiana, prompting Fisher to file a lawsuit under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Fisher appeals the jury verdict and the denial of his motion for a new trial. We affirm.

833 A.2d 1 (2003) 2003 ME 117 C. Gary LLOYD v. SUGARLOAF MOUNTAIN CORP. et al. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Argued: June 10, 2003. Decided: September 25, 2003. *2 Arthur J. Greif, Esq. (orally), Julie D. Farr, Esq., Gilbert & Greif, P.A., Bangor, for plaintiff. Evan M. Hansen, Esq. (orally),

WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge: Gerald K. Smith, in his capacity as Plan Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Boston Chicken, Inc. and various related entities (the Trustee) filed an action alleging a variety of claims. Later, the Trustee filed motions seeking district court approval of settlements reached with certain of the *995defendants and requesting bar orders

MEMORANDUM ** Plaintiffs Thomas and Diane Lloyd-Butler appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Mary Worrall and her corporation. They also appeal the denial of their motion for partial summary judgment. We agree with the Lloyd-Butlers that their motion for partial summary judgment should have been granted as to their claim for professional negligence; the defendants’ motion for summary

83 N.Y.2d 537 (1994) 634 N.E.2d 171 611 N.Y.S.2d 799 In the Matter of Jean M. Lloyd, as Parent and Natural Guardian of David J. Lloyd, an Infant, Respondent, v. Karen Grella et al., as Commissioners of Schools for the Rochester City School District Board of Education, Appellants. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. Argued March 17, 1994.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge WILLIAMS wrote the opinion, in which Judge MICHAEL and Judge DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ joined. OPINION WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge: George Pregent filed a motion under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e) (West Supp.1999) in the district court requesting a reduction in his term of supervised release on the </

124 F.Supp.2d 763 (1999) CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY XXX-XXX-XXXX, Plaintiffs v. Arthur W. JOHNSTON and Annie J. Johnston, Defendants Arthur W. Johnston and Annie J. Johnston, Counterclaimants v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London subscribing to Policy XXX-XXX-XXXX, Counterdefendants No. CIV.96-1968CCCJAC. United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.<

126 F.Supp.2d 1066 (2001) NORTHLAND INSURANCE COMPANY and John Fenn for and on behalf of Syndicate 529 and all Underwriters subscribing to Lloyd's Policy Number G712119, Plaintiffs, v. ARTHUR HILL & ASSOCIATES, Arthur Hill, and A.W. Hills, Inc., Defendants. No. 00-72475. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. January 4, 2001.

I concur in the result reached in the main opinion — that the $2-million general verdict against Gray Brown-Service Mortuary, Inc. ("Gray Brown-Service"), and in favor of Fred Patrick Lloyd, Jr., is not excessive. I write separately to explain that although I would generally remand a case to have the trial court remedy a failure to specifically allocate a general verdict into compensatory and punitive-damages awards, the trial court's specific conclusions in reviewing the question of

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio- 5773.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Col

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 178 Ohio St.3d 424.] SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, APPELLEE, v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON ET AL., APPELLANTS. [Cite as Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 2024-Ohio-5773.] Insurance—Insurers of paint company that marketed and sold lead paint are not obligated to indemnify paint company for payments that paint company

MESSANO, P.J.A.D. *261*280In 1991, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) entered into two administrative consent orders (ACOs), requiring Exxon to remediate polluted sites it owned and operated at

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge NIEMEYER wrote the opinion, in which Judge MICHAEL and Judge MOTZ joined. NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: In 1995, Lloyd’s of London announced a $22 billion “Plan for Reconstruction and Renewal” to restructure the Lloyd’s market’s reinsurance needs and to revitalize the market. The Plan included an offer by Lloyd’s

Motion to withdraw as counsel and to dismiss appeal as moot denied. Cross motion to reassign counsel denied. Memorandum: The appeal, already dismissed, was abandoned and dismissed on July 17,1990, and no order is necessary (see, 22 NYCRR 1000.3 [b] [2] [i]). Present— Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

94 F.3d 923 Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,306Louis F. ALLEN; Carl K. Baker; Joyce P. Baker; Peter D.Berrington; Oliver Birckhead; Florence Blaustein, Mary L.Bray; T.K. Brooker; Donald J. Brooks; Joseph Callaghan;James Cassel; Terry G. Chapman; J.A. Clawson; John K.Colvin; Fred B. Cox; John Rawlyn; Charles Crabtree;Christopher P. Clup; Gordon C. Davidson; Rutherford Day;Donald D. Doty; M.D.A. Emblin; Audrey Fi