Cases

Judge Rosemary Ledet I iThis is a mass tort, toxic exposure case. This is the second time this case has come before this court on appeal. The previous appeal was from the trial court’s December 15, 2011 judgment certifying a plaintiff class. Guidry v. Dow Chem. Co., 12-0436, 12-0198 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/14/12), 105 So.3d 900 (“Guidry I”), writ granted in part, Guidry v. Dow Chem. Co., 12-2696 (La. 3/1/13), 10

AMOS L. MAZZANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The above-entitled and numbered civil action was heretofore referred to United States Magistrate Judge Caroline M. Craven pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On January 31, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, finding for Plaintiff under recommended fi

AMOS L. MAZZANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Pending before the Court is Texas Health Management LLC's ("THM") Motion to Re-Urge THM's Motion to Vacate *583Arbitration Award (Dkt. #32); Motion for Leave to Amend Original Petition (Dkt. #44); and Motion for Leave to Join Additional Parties (Dkt. #46). Having considered the motions and the relev

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES 0. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) Tan-O-On Marketing Inc.’s Motion to Amend Third Party Complaint for Fraud and Theft of Trade Secrets and Unjust Enrichment, filed February 2, 2012 (Doc. 105) (“Motion to Amend”); and (ii) Defendants Hi-Land Potato Company, Inc.’s and Carl Worley’s Motion to Dismiss Fraud and Fraud-Related

ACCEPTED 13-14-00381-CV THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 1/15/2015 3:58:21 PM

691 F.2d 1070 11 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1002 ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, et al.,Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross- Appellees,v.STATE OF NEW YORK, Counties of Broome, Chenango, Cortland,Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Oswego, Oneida,Onondaga, St. Lawrence and Tioga, Individually and as ClassRepresentatives, Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants.ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF WISCONSIN and Oneida

55 F.3d 768 63 USLW 2659, 31 Fed.R.Serv.3d 845 In re GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION PICK-UP TRUCK FUEL TANKPRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.Jack French, Robert M. West, Charles E. Merritt, GaryBlades, Dawn and Tracey Best, Gary and Jackie Barnes, BettyMarteny, John and Mary Southands, Edmund Berning, Dale W.Plummer, Edmund and Anneta Casey, John and Connie Yonki,Carl and Kathryn Corona, Dallas and Patri

Count 3: Failure to Properly Spend Insurance Funds under the Louisiana Condominium Act 24. Under La. R.S. 9:1123.112(G), if the condominium is not repaired or replaced after a fire (when one of the three exclusive criteria of La. R.S. 9:1123.112(G) occur), a statutory formula directs how the insurance money must be spent. * * *<

Case: 24-20144 Document: 68-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-20144 ____________ F

Case: 24-10995 Document: 89-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED

USCA11 Case: 21-12776 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 1 of 44 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-12776 ____________________ WBY, INC., d.b.a

RICHARD M. BERMAN, District Judge: This is an appeal from a lawsuit brought by Tondalaya Evans (“Evans” or “Appellant”) against her employer, Books-A-Million (“Books-A-Million” or “Appellee”), a national book retailer, alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), the Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), and the Consolidat

Case: 13-10054 Date Filed: 08/08/2014 Page: 1 of 22 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-10054 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:07-cv-02172-CLS TONDALA

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BENJAMIN KOHN, No. 20-17316 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:20-cv- 04827-PJH v. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA; OPINION CALIFORNIA COMMITTEE OF BAR EXAMINERS, and Their Agents in Their Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court

Classification/Desc Year Corpus Source or Source Type Excerpt of Concordance Line Contextual summary ription As we said in both Benoit and Ros

ORDER AND REASONS SUSIE MORGAN, District Judge. Before the Court are several pending motions: (1) plaintiff-intervenor Justice Bernette Johnson’s (“Justice Johnson”) “Motions to (A) Reopen Case, (B) to Join as Defendants Justices Kimball, Victory, Knoll, Weimer, Guidry, and Clark of the Louisiana Supreme Court, (C) for Contempt Against Justices Kimball, Weimer, Guidry, and Clark;”1

AMENDED ORDER AND REASONS SARAH S. VANCE, District Judge. This Court VACATES its Order and Reasons issued September 5, 20141 and replaces it with this Amended Order and Reasons, to correct the final paragraph of the order. Two sets of defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

ORDER LARRY R. HICKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the court is Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification. Doc. # 144.1 Defendants filed a Response (Doc. # 161), to which Plaintiffs’ replied (Doc. # 167). Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages for their Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification. Doc. # 164. Plaintiffs filed a Response (D

ORDER ORLANDO L. GARCIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court are Defendants’ motions (docket nos. 242, 244) seeking the dismissal of- Plaintiffs’ and Intervener’s claims against them. The Court has reviewed these motions, together with the arguments raised by the parties in their memoranda, responses, and replies (docket nos. 255, 260, 264, 274, 278), the record in this case, and the applicable

Memorandum Opinion and Order Gary Scott Feinerman, United States District Judge Mary Haywood, Martha Lewis, Annie Stubenfíeld, A.D. Lindsey, Essie McAllis-ter, and Sandra Walton brought this putative class action against the Chicago Housing Authority (“CHA”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Illinois law. The operative complaint alleges that CHA violated the Brooke Amendment to the United States Housing Act of 1