Cases

PER CURIAM The Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) provides for the expedited dismissal of certain legal actions based on, relating to, or responding to a defendant's exercise of the right of free speech. But the TCPA does not apply to actions based on certain commercial speech. Texas courts of appeals are divided on the proper construction of the commercial-speech exemption. Here, the court of appeals held that the exemption ap

Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. *159 Recognizing that "[f]irearms and domestic strife are a potentially deadly combination," United States v. Hayes, 555

ACCEPTED 14-14-01021-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 14-14-01021-CV 12/29/2014 10:03:31 PM

169 F.3d 1131 9 A.D. Cases 149, 14 NDLR P 208 Paul J. KIEL, Appellant,v.SELECT ARTIFICIALS, INC., Appellee. No. 97-2433. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 23, 1998.Decided March 4, 1999. 1 John D. Lynn, St. Louis, Mis

432 S.W.2d 669 (1968) CASTLEMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al. v. Dr. Edna PENNINGTON et al. Supreme Court of Tennessee. July 12, 1968. Rehearing Denied October 25, 1968. *671 W. Raymond Denney and William D. Castleman, Nashville, for petitioners. Charles H. Warfield and John Cabler Corbitt, Nashville, for respondents.

Opinion issued April 21, 2020 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-19-00497-CV ——————————— BLAZE SALES & SERVICES, INC., TEXAS TOOLS & DISTRIBUTORS, INC., AKHIL SHARMA, RUPAK KUMAR JHA, ANKUSH YADAV, ABRIANNA BRITO AND PAUL ABAD, Appellants

62 F.3d 1428 130 Lab.Cas. P 57,972 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1

291 N.W.2d 331 (1980) WUNSCHEL LAW FIRM, P.C., Appellee, v. Larry D. CLABAUGH, Appellant. No. 63634. Supreme Court of Iowa. April 23, 1980. *332 Morris C. Hurd, of Hurd Law Firm, P.C., Ida Grove, for appellant. James R. Van Dyke of Wunschel Law Firm, P.C., Carroll, for appellee. Lee H. Gaudineer, Carlton G. Salmons,

Opinion of the Court bt Chief Justice Barker —Affirming. This suit was instituted in the Jefferson circuit court by David R. Castleman for the purpose of obtaining an injunction restraining the appellee, Ed. Meglemry, from interfering with him in the discharge of his duties as trustee of the jury fund of Jefferson county. The merits of the case involve a proper construction of the a

This is a suit in damages under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, brought by Maude Crecelius as administratrix of the estate of Walter Crecelius, deceased, against the defendant, for the alleged negligent killing of the decedent, who was the husband of the plaintiff. She obtained a judgment in the sum of $25,000. From this judgment the defendant has duly appealed. This is the second appeal in this case. After a reversal in this court, Crecelius v. Ry. Co., 274 Mo. 671

MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN D. BATES, United States District Judge On July 16, 2015, defendant Paul Moore, Jr., pleaded guilty to unlawful possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation -of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). A first draft of the Presentence Investigation Report concluded that Moore qualified as a “career offender” under § 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 09-0026 (PLF) ) RICO RODRIGUS WILLIAMS, ) ) Defendant.

Filed 10/25/23 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE MARY’S KITCHEN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, G061693 v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2021-01224070) CITY OF ORANGE, OPINION Defenda

JUDGMENT This case was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and on the briefs and oral arguments of the parties. The Court has afforded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See Fed. R. App. P. 36; D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgments of the United

OPINION KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. A police officer found a pistol in Charles Gatson’s car, which eventually led to his conviction for being both a felon in possession of a firearm and a misdemeanant with a domestic-violence conviction in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and (9), respectively. The district court sentenced Gatson

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 17a0225p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ │

Filed 6/29/22; Certified for Publication 7/22/22 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Trinity) ---- CONNOR CALLANAN, C094008 Cross-complainant and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 20CV057)

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 6, 2022 Decided June 30, 2023 No. 21-1018 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. AND THE BOEING COMPANY, INTERVENORS

MEMORANDUM OPINION George J. Hazel, United States District Judge The Court is asked to determine whether a defendant found guilty of robbing a Pizza Hut by pointing a firearm in the direction of store employees, and then leading a battalion of police officers in a high speed chase through residential neighborhoods and the interstate, should face the mandatory minimum sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 924

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting: To be clear, this case is not about whether courts favor or disfavor same-sex marriage, or whether States recognizing or declining to recognize same-sex marriage have made good policy decisions. It is much narrower. It is about whether a State’s decision not to recognize same-sex marriage violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, the judicial response