Cases

137 Nev., Advance Opinion 4, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA TEVA PARENTERAL MEDICINES, No. 81024 INC., F/K/A SICOR, INC.; BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; AND MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL, INC., Petitioners, FILED vs. THE EIGHT

965 F.2d 678 75 Ed. Law Rep. 777 John MASSEY, Homer B. Sewell, Eunice Lieurance, Donald L.Esslinger, Kendall E. Anderson, Richard Atkinson, Donald W.Bailey, David E. Baker, Betty Ann Barnett, Bruce E. Beck,Linda S. Benedict, Roger Bennett, Robert J. Bevins, AlbertTice Black, Roy Blassingame, Rebecca Blocker, LindaGlumenberg, Kenneth A. Bolte, Gerald A. Boschert, Martha M.Bowen, Paul Brautigam, Jo

160 Ill. App.3d 769 (1987) 513 N.E.2d 845 THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 86-2564. Illinois Appellate Court — First District (3rd Division). Opinion filed August 19, 1987. Rehearing denied September 30, 1987.

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (2021 NY Slip Op 05388) BODY { font-family : "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size : larger; } P { line-height: 150%; text-indent: 2em } Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law  468-a

Matter of Attorneys Inviolation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (2024 NY Slip Op 04648) Matter of Attorneys Inviolation of Judiciary Law § 468-a 2024 NY Slip Op 04648 Decided on September 26, 2024 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by

966 F.2d 142 140 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2564, 30 Wage & Hour Cas.(BNA) 1556,122 Lab.Cas. P 35,689 Michelle SHAFFER; Lionel Alexander; Angela Andrews;Joseph Banks; Cynthia Bailey; Maria Y. Bailey; KathyBaker; John Bane; Katherine Barnette; Kathy Baston;Victor Bell; David L. Bogart; Baron Booker; CarolynBottoms; Evey M. Brake; Patrice Branch; Ruben Brown;Frank W. Campbell; Glenn W.

Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed November 4, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court

OPINION AND ORDER PER CURIAM. The Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, previously has transferred several actions in this litigation to the District of Kansas and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Frank G. Theis for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In re A. H. Robins Co., Inc. “Dalkon Shield” IUD Products Liability Litigation, 438 F.Supp. 942 (Jud.Pan.Mult

453 F.Supp. 108 (1978) In re A. H. ROBINS CO., INC., "DALKON SHIELD" IUD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. No. 211. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. July 7, 1978. As Corrected August 16, 1978. *109 Before JOHN MINOR WISDOM, Chairman, and EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, AN

Reversed and Remanded and Opinion filed December 21, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court Harr

889 F.2d 401 58 USLW 2293 The STATE OF NEW YORK, the City of New York, the New YorkCity Health & Hospitals Corp., Dr. Irving Rust, on behalf ofhimself, his patients and all others similarly situated, Dr.Melvin Padawer, on behalf of himself, his patients, and allothers similarly situated, Medical and Health ResearchAssociation of New York City, Inc., Planned Parenthood ofNew York City, Inc., P

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge: Michelle Shaffer appeals the judgment of the district court dismissing without prejudice her action against Farm Fresh under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (FLSA). Shaffer, on behalf of herself and 125 consenting class mem*144bers, challenges the following district court rulings: (1) an order disqualifying Shaf

CARDAMONE, Circuit Judge, concurring: I concur in Judge Winter’s thorough opinion to affirm because I agree that the regulations promulgated by the Secretary are permissible under Title X, and are not constitutionally infirm. If experience under the regulations proves otherwise, a challenge may later be raised and resolved. I write separately to express two concerns. The first concern is

ORDER. WALKER, District Judge. On July 11, 1994, the government obtained a forty-two count superseding indictment against eighteen defendants, charging them for their involvement in a heroin smuggling organization allegedly headed by Pius Ade-men. Much of the evidence that was used to indict the defendants was acquired as a result of a wiretap authorized by a judge of this court on July 29,1993.

986 F.Supp. 1228 (1997) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Pius AILEMEN, et al., Defendants. No. CR-94-0003-VRW (WDB). United States District Court, N.D. California. October 24, 1997. *1229 Gail Shifman, San Francisco, CA, Karen L. Snell, Clarence & Snell LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendant Pius Ailemen. Martin R

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s1 order denying their claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. We affirm. I. The University of Missouri operates a retirement plan known as the University of Missouri Retirement Disability and Death Benefit Plan (URS). The URS was established by the Board of Curators of the Univers