Cases

USCA11 Case: 19-10604 Date Filed: 07/20/2022 Page: 1 of 110 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-10604 ____________________ ROBERT W. OTTO, JULIE H. HAMILTON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus CITY OF BOCA RATON, FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PALM BEACH, FL,

People v Casas (2024 NY Slip Op 05903) People v Casas 2024 NY Slip Op 05903 Decided on November 26, 2024 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

People v Anderson (2025 NY Slip Op 00386) People v Anderson 2025 NY Slip Op 00386 Decided on January 23, 2025 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

439 B.R. 561 (2010) In re CHEMTURA CORPORATION, et al., Debtors. No. 09-11233 (REG). United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York. October 21, 2010. *566 Kirkland & Ellis LLP, by M. Natasha Labovitz, Esq. (argued), Craig A. Bruens, Esq., Richard M. Cieri, Esq., New York, NY, and by David J. Zott, Esq. (argued), Nader R. Boulos, Esq.

People v Wall (2025 NY Slip Op 02555) People v Wall 2025 NY Slip Op 02555 Decided on April 29, 2025 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

People v Knight (2025 NY Slip Op 04736) People v Knight 2025 NY Slip Op 04736 Decided on August 20, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorre

MEMORANDUM ORDER JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge. Pending before the Court are the motions in limine of defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“Novartis”). Having reviewed the parties’ written submissions and provided them with the opportunity for oral argument, the Court grants the motions in part, denies them in part, and reserves them in part. On June 29, 2006, pla

937 F.Supp. 694 (1996) ALLIED GATOR, INC., Plaintiff, v. NPK CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendant. No. 1:95-CV-464. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. August 16, 1996. *695 Richard L. Byrne, Blynn L. Shideler, Webb, Ziesenheim, Bruening, Logsdon, Orkin & Hanson, Pittsburgh, PA, Charles E. Dunlap, Yo

OPINION MILLER, Judge. Before the court after remand from the Federal Circuit is a case brought by utility companies that produce nuclear power to recover overpayments for enrichment of uranium. Plaintiffs take the position that the case has been remanded for further development of the record; defendant urges in its Motion for Entry of Judgment on the Record, which is the subject of this opinion,

Matter of Trina L. v Michelene M. (2024 NY Slip Op 02597) Matter of Trina L. v Michelene M. 2024 NY Slip Op 02597 Decided on May 09, 2024 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judi

Matter of Bruen v Merla-Profenna (2020 NY Slip Op 01494) Matter of Bruen v Merla-Profenna 2020 NY Slip Op 01494 Decided on March 4, 2020 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bu

BRYSON, Circuit Judge. The United States government has long performed uranium enrichment for domestic and foreign utility companies. Uranium enrichment consists of converting natural uranium into enriched uranium suitable for use in nuclear power plants. Each of the plaintiff utilities entered into an enrichment contract with the United States before September 1, 1992. Until July 1, 1993, the contracts were administered a

OPINION JOHNSEN, Chief Judge. ¶ 1 We hold in this appeal that a defendant who files a motion to dismiss pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b) in lieu of an answer forfeits his claim for attorney’s fees if he does not ask for fees at the time he moves to dismiss. The defendant here did not request fees until after the superior court granted his motion to dismiss. We vacate the award of fe

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4607 Doc: 45 Filed: 07/07/2025 Pg: 1 of 18 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-4607 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEPHEN SIMMONS, Defendant - Appellant.

Peters, P.J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Bruening, J.), entered November 9, 2015 in Essex County, which, among other things, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant Westport Golf Investors, LLC (hereinafter Westport) owns and operates a public golf course known as the Westport Country Club (hereinafter the Country Club) locate

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1390 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1391 OPINION This petition seeks reversal of an order of summary adjudication made by the judge in charge of coord

Case: 23-10837 Document: 59-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-10837 ____________ FILED

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1886 Doc: 84 Filed: 08/27/2025 Pg: 1 of 16 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1886 KIMBERLY LAFAVE; GLENN M. TAUBMAN; ROBERT HOLZHAUER, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. THE COUN

[Cite as Ohio River Resources, L.L.C. v. Westfall, 2025-Ohio-2379.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MONROE COUNTY OHIO RIVER RESOURCES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KEVIN WESTFALL et al.,

PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs, landowners affected by the acquisition of property rights for an interstate highway, bring an interlocutory appeal from a denial of injunctive relief under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. § 4601 et seq., to prevent the procurement of their property by the Missouri State Highway Commission. The district court sustained the motion to dismiss