Cases

122 Mich. App. 35 (1982) 329 N.W.2d 522 CLEMENS v. BRUCE Docket No. 58486. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided December 8, 1982. Paul B. Newman, for plaintiffs. Murphy & Caris (by Theodore A. Caris), for defendant Bruce. Before: R.B. BURNS, P.J., and MacKENZIE and T.L. BROWN,[*] JJ. PER

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CARLOS MURGUIA, United States District Judge Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) filed this case seeking a judicial declaration that a 1996-1997 Liberty Mutual workers’ compensation and employee liability insurance policy does not cover a black lung disease claim filed by defendant Clayton Spencer, a former employee of defendant The Clemens Coal Company

DECISION AND ORDER DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge. This action is one of several before the Court involving similar claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., by current and former employees of Xerox Corporation (“Xerox”), relating to the manner in which plaintiffs’ pension benefits have been calculated.1 The

*1062OPINION OWENS, Circuit Judge: Bruce Barton appeals from the district court’s judgment concluding that the ADT Security Services Pension Plan Administrator did not abuse its discretion in denying Barton’s request for pension benefits. Because the district court did not have the benefit of our analysis regarding the burden of proof in a case su

ACCEPTED 01-14-000563-cv FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/20/2015 5:07:56 PM CHRISTO

689 N.W.2d 764 (2004) 264 Mich. App. 1 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. TOWNSHIP OF BRUCE, Respondent-Appellee, and Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Amicus Curiae. Docket No. 246579. Court of Appeals of Michigan. Submitted June 9, 2004, at Detroit. Decided October 5, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. Released for Publicati

471 F.2d 969 153 U.S.App.D.C. 1 UNITED STATES of Americav.Archie W. BRAWNER, Appellant. No. 22714. United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit. Argued En Banc April 12, 1972.Decided June 23, 1972.Rehearing Denied Aug. 21, 1972. Syllabus by the Court

933 F.Supp. 781 (1996) David E. BRUCE, Trustee of the Keith E. Bruce Revocable Trust; David E. Bruce, Trustee of the Mary Kay Bruce Revocable Trust; David E. Bruce, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. ICI AMERICAS, INC., n/k/a Zeneca Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Defendant. Civil No. 1-94-CV-10042. United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Western Division. May 15, 1996. <

627 F.Supp.2d 72 (2009) Clifford B. MEACHAM; Thedrick L. Eighmie; and Allen G. Sweet, all individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated; and James R. Quinn, PhD; Deborah L. Bush; Raymond E. Adams; Wallace Arnold; William F. Chabot; Allen E. Cromer; Paul M. Gundersen; Clifford J. Levendusky; Bruce E. Palmatier; Neil R. Pareene; William C. Reynheer; John K. Stannard; David W. Townsend; and Carl T. Woodman, Plaintiffs, v. KNOLLS

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (“the employer”) who lost them jobs and sued pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 681(a), and the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(3-a)(a). Following our August 14, 2006 decision in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, 461 F.3d 134 (2d Cir.2006), Plaintiffs appealed to the Unit

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (“the employer”) who lost them jobs and sued pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 681(a), and the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(3-a)(a). Following our August 14, 2006 decision in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, 461 F.3d 134 (2d Cir.2006), Plaintiffs appealed to the Unit

LOHIER, Circuit Judge: The principal issue in this appeal is whether the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Larimer, J. ) awarded an adequate equitable remedy for violations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.

777 F.Supp. 1550 (1991) MOUNTAIN STATES FINANCIAL RESOURCES CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Kris K. AGRAWAL, a/k/a K.K. Agrawal; and Vimala Agrawal, a/k/a V. Agrawal, et al., Defendants. No. CIV-91-839-C. United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma. October 22, 1991. Bruce F. Klein, Clemens Holshouser Pate & Klein, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Mountain States Financial R

CLEMENS, Presiding Judge. Appellant-husband cross-appeals from the amount of monetary allowances granted to respondent-wife in their decree of marital dissolution. We affirm the judgment of the trial court for the reasons stated in the companion opinion, No. 37,763, handed down this date. DOWD, and SMITH, JJ., concur. CLEMENS, Presiding Judge. Plaintiff-wif

CLEMENS, Senior Judge, dissenting. I would affirm. This on the principle of a wrong without damage. The plaintiff Commission stipulated that the amounts paid here to appraiser Crain were typical of other amounts paid for appraisals, and also stipulated the Commission had experienced no problems in acquiring easements based on Crain’s appraisals. Thus, the Commission was not damaged by Crain’s

2017 UT App 56 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT L. JUDD III AND CHARLES L. ALLEN, Appellees, v. DAVID BOWEN, Appellant. Opinion No. 20140285-CA Filed March 30, 2017 Third District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable Su J. Chon

CLEMENS, Senior Judge. The Highway Commission initially won on its complaint against Tank Trailer, Inc. (the company). This in a hearing before the commission’s hearing examiner. However, when this ruling came on for review the circuit court found against the commission; it has appealed to our court. The commission’s complaint was based on its regulation barring advertising signs — even on the advertiser’

DECISION & ORDER CHARLES J. SIRAGUSA, District Judge. INTRODUCTION This employment discrimination case is before the Court on Defendant’s motion (Docket No. 19) for summary judgment. Plaintiffs complaint alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. Following its review of the papers in support of and in opposition to the ap

GARAUFIS, District Judge. Plaintiff-appellants appeal from a June 3, 2002 grant of partial dismissal and from a July 30, 2004 grant of summary judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (David G. Larimer, Chief Judge) in favor of Xerox Corporation (“Xerox”)2, the Xerox Corporation Retirement Income Guarantee Plan (“the Plan”), and individual

535 F.3d 111 (2008) Paul J. FROMMERT, Alan H. Clair, Donald S. Foote, Thomas I. Barnes, Ronald J. Campbell, Frank D. Commesso, William F. Coons, James D. Gagnier, Brian L. Gaita, William J. Ladue, Gerald A. Leonardo Jr., Frank Mawdesley, Harold S. Mitchell, Walter J. Petroff, Richard C. Spring, Patricia M. Johnson, F. Patricia M. Tobin, Nancy A. Revella, Anatoli G. Puschkin, William R. Plummer, Michael J. McCoy, Larry J. Gallagher, Napoleon B. Barbosa, A