Cases

PICKETT, Judge. | jDefendants-Relators, BP Products North America, Inc.; BP Exploration & Oil, Inc.; BP Exploration, Inc.; and Sohio Petroleum Company (“BP”), seek a supervisory writ from the judgment of the trial court which denied their Motion for Adoption of LDNR’s Most Feasible Plan Pursuant to La.R.S. 30:29 and ordered LDNR to submit a final plan by July 8, 2017.

RENDERED: OCTOBER 23, 2025 TO BE PUBLISHED Supreme Court of Kentucky 2024-SC-0002-MR GARY SWEET APPELLANT ON APPEAL FROM WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT V. HONORABLE SARA B. GREGORY, JUDGE NO. 19-CR-00158-001

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC19-195 ____________ WILLIAM EARL SWEET, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. February 27, 2020 PER CURIAM.

DOYLE, Presiding Judge. We granted this discretionary appeal from a decision of the Appellate Division of the State Board of Workers’ Compensation affirmed by operation of law pursuant to OCGA § 34-9-105 (b), (d). Dong An Cho appeals that portion of the decision adopting a ruling by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that Cho waived his claim for attorney fees under OCGA §§ 34-9-108 (b) (2) and 34-9-126 (b). For the reasons

I .GLENN B. GREMILLION, Judge. In this case, the defendant, Renaldo Gerard Sweet, was convicted of the crime of armed robbery, in violation of La.R.S. 14:64, and was sentenced to thirty years at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, with credit for time served. Defendant now appeals his conviction and sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm.

MEMORANDUM RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BAYLSON, District Judge. This case presents the delicious issue, sure to please those with a sweet tooth, of *533whether summary judgment should be granted to either side in a trademark infringement dispute over apple pastry desserts. Plaintiff Sweet Street Desserts, Inc. (“Sweet Street”) manufactured an ap

*********** The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Kim Ledford, as well as the briefs and oral arguments of both parties. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence or to amend the prior Opinion and Award. Accordingly, the Full Commission affirms and adopts the Deputy Commissioner's holding and enters

ORDER PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge. I write to resolve four of the remaining discovery disputes in this matter. *371I. HBO’s Objections to the Special Master’s Decision and Order On October 14, 2010, Devin F. Ryan, Esq., the Special Master in this matter, issued a Decision and Orde

342 S.C. 342 (2000) 536 S.E.2d 91 The STATE, Respondent, v. Tony Tjuan SWEET, Appellant. No. 3232. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Heard April 11, 2000. Decided July 31, 2000. *344 Regan A. Pendleton, of Greenville, for appellant. Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy

Order modified and as modified affirmed, without costs. All concur. (The order grants motion for examination before trial in an action to recover commissions.) Present — Sears, P. J., Edgeom" , Crosby, Cunningham and Taylor, JJ.

AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed December 3, 2018. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-01140-CV SHANE LANGSTON AND REBECCA LANGSTON, Appellants V. FREESE & GOSS, PLLC., RICHARD A. FREESE, TIM K. GOSS, SHEILA M.

HORTON, Judge. On 7 May 1993, Sheila P. Sweet (plaintiff) and Harvey Wenton Davidson (Mr. Davidson) were involved in an automobile accident. *174Mr. Davidson died on 22 June 1993 of causes unrelated to the accident. On 6 May 1996, plaintiff brought an action for damages based on her personal injuries from the automobile accident. The 1996 action [Sweet I] was filed in

(text box: 1) NO. 5-99-0654 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT ________________________________________________________________________ ANGELIA JACKSON, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant,

OPINION AND ORDER SCHEINDLIN, District Judge. This is a securities fraud action in which plaintiffs now move for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Defendants do not oppose certification of a class. Rather, defendants contend that the class proposed by plaintiffs is impermissibly broad. Accordingly, the sole issue to be resolved on this motion is the proper memb

118 F.Supp.2d 73 (2000) Evelyn HEINRICH on Behalf of her husband George HEINRICH, Henry M. Sienkewicz, Jr. on behalf of his mother Eileen Rose Sienkewicz,[1] Plaintiffs, v. William H. SWEET, M.D., Trustee of the Lee Edward Farr Trust dated 1/11/71, as amended,[2] The Estate of Lee Edward Farr,[2] M.D., Associated Universities, Inc.,[2] Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts Institute of Technolog

953 F.Supp. 225 (1996) Edward SWEET and Kimberly Sweet, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant. No. 96 C 4076. United States District Court, N.D.Illinois, Eastern Division. December 23, 1996. *226 Sara Elwood Cook, Kristin L. Dvorsky, McKenna, Storer, Rowe, White & Farrug, Chicago, IL, Thomas Henry Cafcas, Jr., Waucanda, I

740 So.2d 186 (1999) Steven ARBOURGH, Husband of/and Cynthia Arbourgh Individually and on Behalf of Steven Arbourgh, Jr. v. SWEET BASIL BISTRO, INC. No. 98-CA-2218. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. May 19, 1999. Rehearing Denied September 15, 1999. *187 David W. Bernberg New Orleans, Louisiana, Couns

Ellington, Judge. Sweet Water Tree Farm, Inc. appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to J. Frank Schmidt & Son, Inc. (“Schmidt”) in this suit on an account. Sweet Water contends that the court erred in granting summary judgment to Schmidt because material issues of fact exist regarding whether the indebtedness at issue was incurred by Sweet Water or by another corporation. For the following reasons, we re

519 A.2d 1260 (1987) ESTATE OF Charlotte J. SWEET. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Argued November 19, 1986. Decided January 6, 1987. *1261 Linscott, Badger & Slater, Michael L. Rair (orally), Bangor, for plaintiff. Ferris, Dearborn & Willey, P.A., Joel A. Dearborn (orally), Brewer, for defendant. Before NICHOLS, R

FOURTH DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., MCFADDEN and BOGGS, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/ June 25, 2013 In