Cases

USCA11 Case: 24-10139 Document: 59-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 1 of 111 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-10139 ____________________ BRUCE HENRY,

ACCEPTED 15-25-00092-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/20/2025 4:56 PM NO. 15-25-00092-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER JOHN E. OTT, Chief United' States Magistrate Judge Acting upon the relation and for the use of the Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”), the United States (hereinafter the “Government”) filed these two condemnation actions pursuant to Fed, R. Civ. P. 71.1 and the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 831-831ee. In connection therewith, the

458 F.Supp.2d 1273 (2006) John F. KNIGHT, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Intervenors, United States of America Plaintiff, v. The State of ALABAMA, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. CV-83-M-1676-. United States District Court, N.D. Alabama. October 5, 2004. *1275 Alice H. Martin, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Birm

03/11/2022 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON February 16, 2021 Session COMMERCIAL PAINTING COMPANY INC. v. THE WEITZ COMPANY LLC ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-06-1573 JoeDae L. Jenkins, Chancellor ____________

546 So.2d 371 (1989) CENTRAL ALABAMA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. Janice C. TAPLEY. 87-1188. Supreme Court of Alabama. May 12, 1989. *373 William P. Cobb II and Patricia A. Hamilton of Balch & Bingham, Montgomery, for appellant. Randall S. Hayes and Larry W. Morris of Radney & Morris, Alexander City, for appellee. <

ACCEPTED 12-14-00220-CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 9/4/2015 3:01:53 PM

7 So.3d 318 (2008) Price McLEMORE et al. v. HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING ALABAMA, LLC, and the Industrial Development Board of the City of Montgomery. George E. Russell and Thomas E. Russell, as coexecutors and cotrustees of the will and testamentary trust of Ernest W. Russell; and Myrtis Russell v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, and the Industrial Development Board of the City of Montgomery. 1070516 an

FILED IN st 1 COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TX 12/07/2015 NO. CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, CLERK IN THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS FOR TH

FILED IN st 1 COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TX 12/07/2015 CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, NO. CLERK IN THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF TE

USCA11 Case: 19-10332 Document: 302-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 1 of 142 19-10332 Opinion of the Court 1 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-10332 _______

ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE, District Judge. This matter came before the Court on March 14, 2013 for a Hammond-Green Oil hearing regarding the singular issue of damages relating to Defendant’s Rule 50 Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. 377), Rule 59 Motion for New Trial (Doc. 378), and Motion for Remittitur (Doc. 379); Plaintiffs Response (Doc. 384); Defendant’s Reply (

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT K. MICHAEL MOORE, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE . THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. and State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.’s (collectively, “State Farm” or “Plaintiff’) Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 123) and Defendant Alex Alonso, M.D.’s Motion for . Su

OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. STEELE, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on five cross motions for summary judgment in these consolidated cases. Then-magistrate judge Sheri Polster Chappell filed a seventy-nine page Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 123)1 on January 31, 2013, recommending that Plaintiffs’ motions be denied and Defendants’ motions be gran

574 So.2d 716 (1990) UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. EAST CENTRAL ALABAMA FORDMERCURY, INC., et al. UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al. 89-541, 89-613 to 89-622. Supreme Court of Alabama. September 28, 1990. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing January 18, 1991.

700 F.Supp.2d 1055 (2010) GIRL SCOUTS OF MANITOU COUNCIL INC., Plaintiff, v. GIRL SCOUTS OF the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INC., Defendant. Case No. 08-CV-184. United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. March 31, 2010. *1057 Gary W. Leydig, Riordan Fulkerson Hupert & Coleman, Chicago, IL, Tomislav Z. Kuzmanovic, Russell A. K

JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence, filed December 1, 2017 (Doc. 78)("Motion"); (ii) the Defendant's Supplemental Motion to Suppress All Evidence Seized and Any Fruits of the Poisonous Tree Obtained as a Result of the Unlawful Search, filed July 24, 2018 (Doc. 141)("Supp. Motion"); (iii) the Defendant Bentley Streett'

ACCEPTED 03-14-00340-CV 5210597 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

GLICKMAN, Associate Judge, dissenting: The question in this appeal is whether the so-called “absolute pollution exclusion” precludes insurance coverage for injuries caused by indoor air pollution attributable to carbon monoxide from a building furnace. My colleagues in the majority conclude that the exclusion is limited to large-scale industrial pollution of the natural environment of the kind targeted by federa

WALD, Circuit Judge: This case concerns the extent to which new coal-fired steam generators that produce electricity must control their emissions of sulfur dioxide and particulate matter into the air. In June of 1979 EPA revised the regulations called “new source performance standards” (“NSPS” or “standards”) governing emission con