Cases

264 F.3d 344 (3rd Cir. 2001) IN RE: ORTHOPEDIC BONE SCREW PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 1014)J.T. Bradley and Kathy W. Bradley, Appellants in No. 00-3899Regina M. Luellen and Eurston Luellen, Sr., Appellants in No. 00-3900Randal Jon Uribe, Appellant in No. 00-3901Mitchell H. Walker and Kim S. Walker, Appellants in No. 00-3902Jose Morfin, Appellant in No. 00-3903Mary K. Mullen Schmelter and Kurt Allen Schmelter, Appel

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DAVID KRIEGER, ANDREW KRIEGER, JAMES FOR PUBLICATION SPERLING, and MARGARET SPERLING, on September 7, 2023 Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly 9:05 a.m. Si

253 B.R. 478 (2000) In re Marjorie Louise HAWORTH, Debtor. Lori Lea Lewis, Plaintiff, v. Marjorie Louise Haworth, Defendant. Randy L. Royal, Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Marjorie Louise Haworth, Plaintiff, v. Monad Trust, by and through its Co-Trustees/Exchangors, Marjorie Louise Haworth, Trustee, and Albert Raymond Copp, Jr., Trustee; Marjorie Louise Haworth, formerly known as Marjorie Louise Copp, individually, Defendants

Filed 6/16/17 by Clerk of Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2017 ND 148 Statoil Oil & Gas LP, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Abaco Energy, LLC; American H

398 N.W.2d 167 (1986) Thomas J. BRIDGMAN and Ann L. Bridgman, Husband and Wife, Appellants, v. John W. CURRY and Edna T. Curry, Husband and Wife, Defendants, Dan D. Stevens and Marjorie A. Stevens, Husband and Wife, Donald E. Fike and Marie T. Fike, Husband and Wife, Richard A. Greene and Dale Greene, Husband and Wife; Michael Bibo and Patricia Bibo, Husband and Wife, Appellees, and First National Bank, Burlington, Iowa, Big Three Farm Bu

ORDER ORINDA D. EVANS, District Judge. Table of Contents I. Case History............................................................1201 II. Eleventh Amendment Immunity and the Ex Parte Young Doctrine............1205 III. Copyright Infringement and the Fair Use Defense........................

DIANA E. MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Appellants, former management employees of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) who accepted the terms of a severance incentive plan offered in 1990, filed this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 Ú.S.C. § 1001 et. seq., claiming that SWBT; its parent company, SBC Communications; and its Vice President of Human Resources, Robert A. Dickemper, brea

236 F.Supp. 132 (1964) Richard E. STAFFORD, as Executor of the Estate of Irving John Stafford, deceased, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. No. 64-C-5. United States District Court E. D. Wisconsin. December 11, 1964. *133 Richard R. Teschner and Dale L. Sorden, Milwaukee, Wis., Arthur P. Remley, Neenah, Wis., for

66 F.3d 956 19 Employee Benefits Cas. 2168, Pens. Plan Guide P 23915V Mary E. ANDERSON; Marsha L. Arndt; Garth Bender; Wanda M.Bender; Candace R. Bentley; Yvonne M. Bergman;Mary C. Beseke; Plaintiffs-Appellants,Sandra K. Bethurem; Plaintiff,Lynne A. Blixt; Terry R. Boblit; Kenneth G. Booth;Marjorie Brennan; Theresa A. Briles; Steven W. Brown;Brigita Celms; Kathleen D. Chose; Carolyn M. Cl

55 F.3d 399 Pens. Plan Guide P 23910QG. Bruce WILSON; Marco L. Gilliam; William H. Jones;Robert E. McVey; Jerry Mooneyham; Edwin R. Acheson; J.Marlene Adams; Betty E. Aldridge; Barbara Alexander; JoAnn Altschul; Virginia S. Amyx; Brenda J. Andrews; SandraK. Anglin; Islo D. Ashmore; Jerry L. Atwood; James D.Bailey; Jimmie F. Bailey; Margaret A. Bailey; Patsy R.Bailey; Jerry F. Baker; John C. Baker; Kat

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 21-2835 ______________ BRYAN DAVID RANGE, Appellant v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; REGINA LOMBARDO, Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives __________

393 F.Supp. 949 (1974) NORTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ralph GROUNDS and Henry Hitch, Jr. et al., Defendants. CITIES SERVICE GAS COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs, v. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION et al., Defendants. CITIES SERVICE GAS COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASHLAND OIL AND REFINING COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs. CITIES SERVICE GAS COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COLUMBIAN FUEL CORPORATION et al., Def

Crothers, Justice. [¶ 1] Statoil Oil & Gas LP appeals from judgments dismissing without prejudice its actions against numerous defendants, seeking a determination of the proper distribution of oil and gas revenues from Williams and McKenzie County wells on land adjacent to the Missouri River and under Lake Sakakawea. We affirm, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the actions because Stato

952 F.2d 1230 60 USLW 2423, 26 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 443,Bankr. L. Rep. P 74,387 In re KAISER STEEL CORPORATION, Debtor.KAISER STEEL CORPORATION; Kaiser Steel Resources, Inc.,formerly known as Kaiser Steel Corporation,Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.PEARL BREWING COMPANY; Falstaff Brewing Company;Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.; Josephthal & Co., Josephthal & Co.Incorporated; the Hillman

OPINION OF THE COURT REAVLEY, Circuit Judge. This Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) claim against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for granting clearance to market certain types of pedicle screw fixation devices (referred to generally as bone screws) was dismissed by the District Court pursuant to the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.1 Appellants contend here that

STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. The question presented in this appeal is whether consideration paid to shareholders for their stock in connection with a leveraged buy out is exempt from the avoiding powers of a trustee under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, as “settlement payments” made “by or to a ... stockbroker, financial institution, or securities clearing agency.” 11 U.S.C. § 546(e). In its order granting defe

ACCEPTED 12-14-00220-CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 9/4/2015 3:01:53 PM

Orders of dismissal for failure to prosecute entered in the following entitled appeals pursuant to rule X of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, Calendar Rules.