Cases

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D2023-1776 _____________________________ JEANETTE VALLE BAXTER, Appellant, v. KERN C. A. BAXTER, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County. Wesley R. Douglas, Judge. December 4, 2024 PER CURIAM. Jeanette Valle Bax

ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Hans J. Rapold, who is Swiss, sued the pharmaceutical company Baxter International, Incorporated (“Baxter”) after it revoked an employment offer for him to work as the Medical Director of Cellular Therapy at its corporate headquarters in Deerfield, Illinois. Dr. Rapold sued Baxter in state court and alleged a number of state law causes of action, but Baxte

OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM T. HART, District Judge. Class action plaintiff Keith Baxter alleges that he purchased a new 2006 Kawasaki Vulcan Nomad 1600 motorcycle (the “Vulcan”) that has an odometer which overstates the miles actually ridden. Named as defendants are Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. (“KMC”), Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. (“KHI”), and Does 1-3.1 KHI design

ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Hans J. Rapold, who is Swiss, sued the pharmaceutical company Baxter International, Incorporated (“Baxter”) after it revoked an employment offer for him to work as the Medical Director of Cellular Therapy at its corporate headquarters in Deerfield, Illinois. Dr. Rapold sued Baxter in state court and alleged a number of state law causes of action, but Baxter removed the case to federal court in reliance o

*********** The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Harris and the briefs of the parties. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, and having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission adopts the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner H

HARRIS, Judge. The record in this case is almost lacking but both sides ignore the fact of the inadequate record and cite facts as though there were some record support for the cite. There is, however, sufficient record on one critical point: appellant’s attorney made no effort to give notice to his client of the hearing on his Motion to Withdraw. Even so, the trial court permitted him to withdraw from the ease. This violated th

710 F.Supp.2d 722 (2010) David E. ROGERS, on behalf of Himself and a Class of Persons Similarly Situated, and on behalf of the Baxter International Inc. and Subsidiaries Incentive Investment Plan, Plaintiff, v. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC., the Administrative Committee, the Investment Committee, Brian P. Anderson, and Harry M. Jansen Kraemer, Jr., Defendants. No. 04 C 6476. United States District Court, N

PRESIDING JUSTICE MURPHY delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiffs, Dennis and Kimberly Quaid, parents and next friends of Zoe Grace and Thomas Boone Quaid, brought an action in the circuit court of Cook County against defendant, Baxter Healthcare Corp., alleging negligence and strict liability. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to the doctri

*********** The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Harris and the briefs of the parties. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, and having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission adopts the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Ha

417 F.Supp.2d 974 (2006) David E. ROGERS, on behalf of Himself and a Class of Persons Similarly Situated, and on behalf of the Baxter International, Inc. and Subsidiaries Incentive Investment Plan and the Baxter Healthcare Corporation of Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Plan, Plaintiff, v. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC., the Administrative Committee, the Investment Committee, Brian P. Anderson, John J. Greisch, Harry M. Jansen Kraemer, Jr., Robert P

Appeal No. 25747 from Judgment dated July 1, 1991, Donald B. Patterson, Ruling Judge, Copiah County Chancery Court. Reversed and Rendered. HAWKINS, C.J., DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PRATHER, BANKS, McRAE and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

214 F.Supp.2d 482 (2002) Joseph BAXTER, Plaintiff v. LANCASTER COUNTY, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 97-537. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. August 13, 2002. *483 Kevin C. Allen, Crystle, Allen & Grimes, LLC, Lancaster, PA, for Plaintiff. Theodore E. Lorenz, Office of Attorney General, Philadelphia, P

[Cite as State v. Baxter, 2019-Ohio-4855.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-180575 TRIAL NO. 18CRB-17343 Plaintiff-Appellee, : vs. : O P I N I O N. WILLIAM BAXTER,

560 F.3d 210 (2009) William L. MARTIN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard O. HARRIS, in personam; Cheryl P. Harris, in personam; The Oil Screw Fintastic, Official Number 587095, her engines, equipment, tackle and apparel, in rem, Defendants-Appellants. No. 07-1610. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued: September 25, 2008. Decided: March 11, 2

USCA11 Case: 23-11902 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2024 Page: 1 of 40 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-11902 ____________________ VERONICA BAXTER, as Personal Re

ORDER PER CURIAM. Dean Baxter, a contractor, brought an action against Harry A. Wood and Ellen A. Wood, asserting claims arising out of an agreement to rebuild a collapsed roof of a commercial building. Defendants counterclaimed against Dean and Shirley Baxter, husband and wife, asserting claims arising out of the same transaction. Defendants and Baxter appeal the judgment of the trial court en

MEMORANDUM — DECISION AND ORDER KAHN, District Judge. Presently before the Court are (i) defendant Baxter’s motion to compel, (ii) Plaintiffs’ motion to extend time to conclude expert disclosure, (iii) Plaintiffs’ motion to allow additional expert disclosure, (iv) defendant Baxter’s motion for summary judgment, and (v) defendant Baxter’s motion to strike Plaintiffs supplemental memorandum o

107 F.Supp.2d 669 (1999) Kelly R. MISKIN, Plaintiff v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORP. et al. Defendant No. CIV. A. WMN-92-2975. United States District Court, D. Maryland. September 16, 1999. *670 Thomas A. Gentile, Harry W. Goldberg, Chevy Chase, MD, for Plaintiff. Carol L. Nicolette, Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Gray, Baltimore

Greaney, J. In this products liability case, the plaintiff Florence Vassallo claimed that the defendants, Baxter Healthcare Corporation and Baxter International, Inc., were liable to her for damages because silicone breast implants, manufactured by a predecessor company to the defendants (Heyer-Schulte Corporation), that had been implanted in her were negligently designed, accompanied by negligent product warnings, and breached the

BEAM, Circuit Judge. Baxter International Inc., Baxter Healthcare Corp., and Baxter Diagnostics, Inc. (collectively “Baxter”), appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri 1 enjoining *1192