Cases

ON REHEARING EN BANC PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1839 JOYCE BARLOW, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendant – Appellant, and JOHN CRANE−HOUDAILLE, INCORPORATED; E.L. STEBBING & COMPANY, INC.; HAMPSHIRE INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a John H. Hampshire Compa

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ABDUL K. KALLON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The plaintiffs in this case are West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (the “Authority”), in its individual capacity, and Tommy Lindsey, Lanette Lindsey, and Larry Watkins (collectively “Representative Plaintiffs”), who bring this action both individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Beverly Dale Jolly and Brenda Rice Jolly, Respondents, v. General Electric Company, et al., Defendants, Of whom Fisher Controls International LLC and Crosby Valve, LLC are the Appellants. Appellate Case No. 2017-002611 Appeal From Spartanburg County Jean Hoefer Toal, Acting Circuit Court Judge Opinion No. 5858 Heard November 2, 2020 – Filed September 1, 2021

PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. This exclusion action was initiated on the complaint of Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company and Ultimate Abrasive Systems L.L.C. (collectively “3M”) under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(l)(B)(ii), formerly § 1337(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (variously called § 337(a)). The International Trade Commission found that the process claimed in United

SACK, Circuit Judge: The plaintiff, Paula Konikoff, a real estate appraiser, brought a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”). Prudential is the manager of two real-estate funds, PRISA and PRI-SA II (the “Funds”), for which Konikoff had provided appraisal services. Konik

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING MIDDLETON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT IT HAS STANDING TO MAINTAIN THIS ACTION MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.........................................................1135 A. Procedural Background...............................................1135

Case: 23-60468 Document: 76-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED September 26, 2024

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-1547 ___________________________ Patricia Walker-Swinton Plaintiff - Appellant v. Philander Smith College; Roderick Smothers, Sr., Dr., President, in his official capac

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1443 ___________________________ GP3 II, LLC Plaintiff - Appellee v. Litong Capital, LLC Defendant - Appellant

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SHEILA D. PRESSLEY, Appellant, v. C.A. No. NISA-l()-OOZ PRW UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD, L/\_/\J%/€\Jé\éé Appellee. Submitted: July 18, 2016 Decided: August 3, 2016 ORDER Upon Appealj"rom the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Boam’, AFFIRMED. This 3m day of August, 2()16, upon the parties’ briefs and submissions and the record beloW, it appears to the Court that: (l) Sheila D. Pressley appeals the denial of her claim for unemployment b

Case: 21-10626 Document: 00516432408 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/15/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 15, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ANN D. MONTGOMERY, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On February 15, 2013, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and on the parties’ motions to exclude expert testimony. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ summary judgment motion is denied. Plaintiffs summary judgment motio

Opinion issued August 30, 2018 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-16-00847-CV ——————————— ADAN G. ADAME, ROBERT H. ARISPE, HARVEY EDWARD ARNOLD, HERMON HARVEY ARNOLD, LUCIANO BARRIENTEZ, HOMER L. BATCHELOR, TOMAS BENITEZ, DELBERT RAY BLUNDELL, MELVIN BRION

MEMORANDUM OPINION SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On March 31, 2010, plaintiffs Mark S. Wallach, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Performance Transportation Services, Inc. (“PTS”), and Tauro Brothers Tracking Company (“Tauro Brothers”) (collectively, “plaintiffs”) filed an antitrust class action complaint against various defendants. (D.I. 1) Defendants

[Cite as Barnhill v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 2015-Ohio-3747.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Antoinette Daniels Barnhill : [d.b.a. Cotton Club], : Appellant-Appellant, No. 15AP-30 : (C.P.C. No. 14CV-7962) v.

Case: 18-20669 Document: 00516267971 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 5, 202

*********** The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Berger. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives. The Full Commission has rewritten the Opinion and Award but affirms the holding of the Deputy Commissioner. *******

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY JACK MAYHORN and ) GEORGIA MAYHORN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. CPU4-16-000219 ) SININA TALLEY-SIDERS, ) ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Submitted: August 2, 2017 Decided: September 5, 2017 Donald L. Gouge, Jr., Esq. Sinina Talley-Siders 800 N. King Street, Ste. 303 P.O. Box 1402 Wilmington, DE 19801 Bear, DE 19701 Attorney for Plaintiffs Pro se Defendant WELCH, J. This case concerns the b

ORDER RE CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. ## 14, 18] AND MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PARTY PLAINTIFF [DOC. # 34] DOLLY M. GEE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment [Doc. ## 14, 18] and Plaintiff Screen Actors Guild, Inc’s (“SAG”) motion to substitute party plaintiff [Doc. # 34]. For the reasons set forth below, SAG’s motion for summary judgmen

953 S.W.2d 733 (1997) MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NISHIKA LTD., Lentec Corporation, American 3D Ltd., and Nishika Manufacturing (H.K.) Ltd., Respondents. No. 94-1124. Supreme Court of Texas. Argued March 19, 1996. Decided October 2, 1997. As Corrected October 30, 1997. *73