Cases

MOORE, Chief Justice (dissenting). I respectfully dissent because I do not think that this Court should accept a certified question when critical facts are not before the Court. I was not a member of this Court when the certified question from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama was answered on original submission. However, I note that Danny Weeks and Vicki Wee

THIRD DIVISION September 28, 2007 No. 1-06-1174 CHRISTOPHER REILLY, a Minor by his ) Appeal from Mother and Next Friend, DRUANNE REILLY, ) the Circuit Court DRUANNE REILLY, and RONALD REILLY, ) of Cook County.

876 N.E.2d 740 (2007) Christopher REILLY, a Minor by his Mother and Next Friend, Druanne REILLY, Druanne Reilly, and Ronald Reilly, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WYETH f/k/a American Home Products Corporation, Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Bioport Corporation, Aventis Pasteur, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Celltech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. f/k/a Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Smith-kline Beecham Corporation d/b/a Glaxosmithkline, Eli Lilly and Company, S

526 So.2d 1101 (1988) Edwin P. BRANNAN v. WYETH LABORATORIES, INC. and American Home Products Corporation. No. 87-C-2667. Supreme Court of Louisiana. May 23, 1988. Rehearing Denied September 8, 1988. Barbara Ryniker Evans, Kimberly Wooten, Partee, Waldrip, Mott, & Evans, New Orleans, for applicant. William Reinhardt, Jr., Post, Reinhardt

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SAFFELS, District Judge. This matter is before the court on interve-nor’s motion for relief from order (Doc. 595) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2). Intervenor previously moved to vacate or modify a protective order entered in the instant case. On May 2, 1994, the court entered a Memorandum and Order denying intervenor’s motion. Intervenor seeks relief from

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SAFFELS, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion of Israel Echevarria to intervene and to vacate or modify the protective order (Doc. 583). The applicant is a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of Ventura County, California, captioned Israel Echevarria v. Subaru of America, Inc., Fuji Heavy Ind., et al., <

Plaintiffs in error W.J. King and H.J. Rafferty, were the plaintiffs, and defendant in error Richards-Cunningham Company, a corporation, was the *Page 362 defendant, in the district court. The parties will be hereinafter referred to as they were aligned in that court. On the 27th day of February, 1925, the plaintiffs leased to the defendant, for the term April 1, 1925, to and including December 31, 1929, certain premises in the city of Casper, Wyom

54 F.3d 787NOTICE: 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, 1995, or further order. Luther Kevin CUNNINGHAM, Plai

532 P.2d 1377 (1974) Charles Eldon CUNNINGHAM, Appellee, v. CHARLES PFIZER & CO., INC., a corporation, Appellant. No. 46237. Supreme Court of Oklahoma. November 19, 1974. Rehearing Denied March 25, 1975. As Corrected March 26, 1975. Morehead, Savage, O'Donnell, McNulty & Cleverdon, C.B. Savage, Harvey A. Rotman, Tulsa, for a

37 F.Supp. 224 (1941) CHENEY CO. v. CUNNINGHAM et al. Civil Action No. 215. District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. January 14, 1941. *225 Richard E. Marine, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Emery, Booth, Holcombe & Miller, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff. Christy, Parmalee & Wharton, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.

Field, J. It has been much discussed whether one who is let into the possession of land under a contract for a deed, intended to be executed and delivered as soon as the title can be examined and the deed prepared, can, while the contract remains. in force and unexecuted, be regarded as a tenant of the vendor, or be held liable to pay for the use and occupation. By perhaps a majority of the courts it is considered that he is a li

Smith, P. J. — The petition in this case, •which, is for an injunction, alleged that both plaintiff and *149defendants were business corporations organized and existing under the statutes of this state. It was further alleged that the defendant had sued the plaintiff by attachment in one of the courts of the state of Kansas, and had procured the process

134 F.3d 260 S.P., a Citizen of Takoma Park, Maryland, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.The CITY OF TAKOMA PARK, MARYLAND; Robert Phillips, in hisofficial capacity as Chief of the Takoma Park PoliceDepartment; Brian Rich, individually and in his capacity asan officer of the Takoma Park Police Department; Unknownand Unidentified Police Officers of the Takoma PoliceDepartment who were present at and involved in the incidentsco

410 F.Supp.2d 404 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. Edward BOGART, Plaintiffs, v. KING PHARMACEUTICALS, Monarch Pharmaceuticals, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, American Service Group, and Prison Health Services, Defendants. No. CIV.A. 03-1538. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. January 23, 2006. *405 Louis Agre, Cher

493 F.3d 323 (2007) UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Edward BOGART; Edward Bogart, individually; State of Illinois ex rel. Edward Bogart; State of California ex rel. Edward Bogart; State of Florida ex rel. Edward Bogart; State of Texas ex rel. Edward Bogart; State of Massachusetts ex rel. Edward Bogart; State of Tennessee ex rel. Edward Bogart; State of Delaware ex rel. Edward Bogart; State of Nevada ex rel. Edward Bogart; State of Louisiana ex rel. Edwa

652 F.3d 103 (2011) State of NEW YORK; Commonwealth of Massachusetts; State of California; State of Illinois; State of Indiana; State of New Mexico ex rel. Kassie Westmoreland; State of Georgia ex rel. Kassie Westmoreland, Plaintiffs, Appellants, United States ex rel. Kassie Westmoreland; State of Delaware; State of Florida; State of Hawaii; State of Louisiana; State of Michigan; State of Nevada; State of New Hampshire; State of Tennessee; State of T

[Cite as Tibbe v. Ranbaxy, Inc., 2017-Ohio-1149.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO ASHLEY N. TIBBE, : APPEAL NO. C-16o472 TRIAL NO. A-1405563 and : CHRISTINE TIBBE, :

ON MOTION PER CURIAM. ORDER The Defendants-Appellees move to dismiss George Pieczenik’s appeals. Pieczen-ik opposes. Pieczenik has appealed from orders denying his motion “in limine to expunge plaintiffs copyright lecture proffered by defendants’ counsel and to charge them with digital copyright infringement,” denying his motion for mediation, and his motion fo

Case: 22-2105 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 07/15/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ADEE HONEY FARMS, ET AL., Plaintiffs MONTEREY MUSHROOMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, TROY MILLER, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND

ANNABELLE CLINTON IMBER, Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. In my view, the majority opinion fails to abide by two of our most strongly held principles of class-certification review: an abuse-of-discretion standard of review that is highly deferential to the circuit court’s order, and a refusal to delve into the merits of the underlying claims. The result is a high