Cases

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

490 F.Supp.2d 89 (2007) NEGB, LLC et al., Plaintiffs v. WEINSTEIN COMPANY HOLDINGS, LLC et al., Defendants. C.A. No. 07-30001-MAP. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. May 18, 2007. *90 *91 Peter Vickery, Amherst, MA, for Plaintiffs. Andrea B. Hasegawa, Kathyleen A. O'Brien,

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiffs appeal from a June 30, 2003 judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Harold Baer, Jr., Judge) dismissing their claim for fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities *327Exchange Commission, 17 C.F.R. § 240.

People v Weinstein (2022 NY Slip Op 03576) People v Weinstein 2022 NY Slip Op 03576 Decided on June 02, 2022 Appellate Division, First Department Mazzarelli, J., Published by New York State Law Reporting

People v Weinstein (2022 NY Slip Op 03576) People v Weinstein 2022 NY Slip Op 03576 Decided on June 02, 2022 Appellate Division, First Department Mazzarelli, J., Published by New Y

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ASHLEY JUDD, an individual, No. 19-55499 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:18-cv-05724- PSG-FFM HARVEY WEINSTEIN, an individual, Defendant-Appellee. OPINION A

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: *161This action by ten plaintiffs-Zoe Brock, Caitlin Dulany, Louisette Geiss, Larissa Gomes, Katherine Kendall, Nannette Klatt, Melissa Sagemiller, Sarah Ann Thomas, Melissa Thompson, and Jane Doe-individually and on behalf of a class, against Harvey Weinstein ("H. Weinstein"), his former companies, and certain

OPINION AND ORDER WYATT, District Judge. This is a motion by plaintiff, said to be under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3) and under Rule 4(c) of the Civil Rules of this Court, for “class action certification” (to quote from the notice of motion). The words quoted doubtless refer to the requirement in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1) that the Court, after the commencement of a class action, shall determine as soon as pr

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1096 OPINION I. INTRODUCTION This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment entered in favor of the insurer, respondent Transcontinental Insurance Company (Transcontinental), and against the insured, appellant The Cooper Companies, Inc. The trial court held that two liability in

OPINION BUSTAMANTE, Judge. {1} Appellants’ motion for rehearing is denied. The opinion filed in this case on March 24, 2016, is withdrawn and this Opinion is substituted in its place. {2} Intervenors Frank Foy, Suzanne Foy, and John Casey (Appellants) appeal the district court’s app

KEARSE, Circuit Judge: Defendant Melvin Weinstein appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Deborah A. Batts, Judge, declaring that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA” or the “Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (1994), does not require plaintiffs Board of Trustees of the CWA/ITU Negotiated Pension Plan (“Plan”) and Plan administrator

646 F.2d 1369 81-1 USTC P 9476 UNITED STATES of America and Donald Jackson, Special Agent,Petitioners/Appellees,v.Charles H. STUCKEY et al., Respondents,andMorry Weinstein, Intervenor-Appellant. No. 79-4691. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 16, 1980.Decided June 1, 1981.

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs — victims of terrorist attacks and their family members — hold substantial unsatisfied money judgments against defendants Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran), Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and Syrian Arab Republic (Syria) arising out of claims brought pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

WINTER, Circuit Judge: These two appeals present two important questions: Does the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment have any application to the conduct of proceedings by a parole board in states which undertake to grant paroles to certain prisoners before service in full of the sentences imposed upon them? If so, may the prisoners complain of a denial of due process in a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, where the s

OPINION OF THE COURT Per Curiam. Respondent Jonathan A. Weinstein was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on June 21, 1967, as Jonathan Alan Weinstein and, at all times relevant to this proceeding, he has maintained an office for the practice of law within the jurisdiction of the Second Department, which transferred each of the three complaints involved in

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: ___________ 3 Filing Date: March 24, 2016 4 NOS. 33,787, 34,042 & 34,077 (Consolidated) 5 NEW MEXICO STATE INVESTMENT 6 COUNCIL, as Trustee, Administrator, and 7 Custodian of the LAND GRANT PERMANENT 8 FUND and the SEVERANCE TAX PERMANENT 9 FUND, 10 Plaintiff-Appellee, 11 and 12 STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. FRANK 13 FOY, SUZANNE FOY, and JOHN CASEY, 14 Plaintiffs-Intervenors-A

OPINION & ORDER COTE, District Judge. This Document Relates to: The Director Defendants,1 the SSB Defendants,2 and Athur Adersen, LLP (“Adersen”) have each moved to dismiss Weinstein v. Ebbers, No. 03 Civ. 2841 (the ‘Weinstein Action”), a putative nationwide class action brought on behalf of “holders” of Worl

MEMORANDUM & ORDER Jack B. Weinstein, Senior United States District Judge In October 2015, this court stayed class certification in the above-captioned cases and referred the critical issue of an appropriate definition of “flushable” wipes and related matters to the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). See Belfiore v. Procter & Gamble Co., 311 F.R.D. 29 (E.D.N.Y.2015), reconsideration de

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 669 KAH 14-02147 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK EX REL. DANIEL FINLAY, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER HONORABLE DAVID S. GIDEON, TOWN JUSTICE, TOWN OF DEWITT, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. ----------------------------------------------- THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL BERMAN; STEPHANIE No. 20-16900 HERNANDEZ; ERICA RUSSELL, Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No. 4:18-cv-01060- v. YGR FREEDOM FINANCIAL NETWORK, LLC; FREEDOM DEBT RELIEF, LLC; OPINION FLUENT, INC.; LEAD SCIENCE,