Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “David Allen Huff, Jr.”
Allen v. Pinnacle Healthcare Systems, LLCpublic domain
SHORT, J. Robert Gunn, Rick Joyce, and Timothy Gunn1 (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the master’s order finding them jointly and severally liable for Dr. Aaron Allen’s unpaid wages, prejudgment interest, and statutory attorney’s fees. Appellants argue the master erred in: (1) finding them personally liable to Allen under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act (the Act); and (2) awarding dam
Dr. David S. Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc.public domain
MARTIN, Circuit Judge: We sua sponte vacate our previous opinion and publish this one in its place. For ease of reading, the major change is to Part II.B, our discussion of Dr. Muransky's standing to bring this action. This appeal was brought to contest the approval of a class-action settlement. Dr. David Muransky filed a class action against Godiva Chocolatier, Inc. for violating the Fair and Accurate Credit Tran
State of Tennessee v. David Lynn Richards, Jr.public domain
09/11/2024 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 28, 2024 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DAVID LYNN RICHARDS, JR. Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 108766 Steven W. Sword, Judge _______________________________
Huff v. Winstonpublic domain
By Judge David B. Carson Pamela E. Huff has served our nation as a member of the armed forces and our community as a Roanoke County deputy sheriff. In this suit, she alleges that her former employer, the Sheriff of Roanoke County, violated her federally-protected rights as a service member who was called to active duty. The statute under which she brings suit is the Uniformed Services Employment and Reempl
Glendale Acres Associates v. Huff, 94-3842 (2003)public domain
1 Dean M. Huff, Jr., is automatically substituted for David Okun as Treasurer of the Town of Barrington without formal order pursuant to Super. R.Civ.P. 25(d). DECISION This is an action for a declaratory judgment pursuant to G.L. 1956(1997 Reenactment) § 9-30-1, et seq.,
O'Connell v. Hove, Jr.public domain
JACOBS, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are employees of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) who claim that the FDIC improperly classified their jobs as exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-19 (1982). Upon motion by the FDIC, and after a hearing, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New Yor
Wellman, Inc. v. Square D Co.public domain
366 S.C. 61 (2005) 620 S.E.2d 86 WELLMAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff, v. SQUARE D COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, R.D.H. Consultants, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation, Cameron & Barkley Company, a Delaware Corporation, Zimmer A.G. a division of MG Technologies AG, a German Corporation, individually and as co-venturer in the Zimmer/Raytheon Consortium, Fluor Enterprises, Inc., a California Corporation, a
Huff v. Union Pacific Railroadpublic domain
liDECUIR, Judge. This is an appeal in a wrongful death action arising out of a vehicle/train collision which occurred on April 21, 1992. Plaintiffs claims were rejected in total by the trial judge and jury with regard to all defendants. We affirm. FACTS On the morning of the accident, the deceased, Howell “Sonny” Huff, Jr., an insulin-dependent diabetic, arose at his regular time and left
Johnson v. Omondipublic domain
BLACKWELL, Justice, concurring. I concur fully in the opinion of the Court. I write separately, however, to more fully explain my understanding of “gross negligence,” as that standard is applied in medical malpractice cases. I also write separately to share some additional thoughts about summary judgments in cases in which OCGA § 51-1-29.5 applies. 1. “Gross negligence” is a familiar stan
KONDUROS, J. The Shipyard Village Council of Co-Owners, Inc. (the Council) appeals the circuit court’s grant of partial summary judgment to owners of condominiums within the development in the case involving faulty windows and sliding doors. The Council argues it did not have a duty to investigate, the business judgment rule should have applied, and a jury could have found it did not breach any duty. We affirm in part, reverse
Dr. David S. Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc.public domain
USCA11 Case: 16-16486 Date Filed: 10/28/2020 Page: 1 of 148 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-16486 & 16-16783 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cv-60716-WPD DR. DAVID S.
5 A.3d 246 (2010) In the Matter of OPENING a PRIVATE ROAD FOR the BENEFIT OF Timothy P. O'REILLY Over Lands of (A) Hickory on the Green Homeowners Association, and (B) Mary Lou Sorbara; Gregory E. Burgunder; Ann E. Cain; Don E. Cottrill & Norma J. Cottrill, H/W; Joseph K. Cupples; Bart V. Delcimmuto; James D. Dragoo & Linda J. Dragoo, H/W; Kimberly M. Fonzi; Brian J. Gallagher & Diane J. Gallagher, H/W; Dolores M. Gembarosky; Michael J. Grali
Tenet HealthSystem GB, Inc. v. Thomaspublic domain
Hines, Chief Justice. **86This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Thomas v. Tenet HealthSystem GB , 340 Ga. App. 70,
Ricigliano v. Riciglianopublic domain
HUFF, J. In this domestic relations matter, Daniel Ricigliano, Jr. (Husband) appeals the order of the family court asserting the court erred in (1) awarding him rehabilitative alimony instead of permanent periodic alimony and making the award conditional, (2) equally dividing the parties’ marital estate, (3) failing to hold Linda Ricigliano (Wife) in contempt for violating the court’s order restraining her from disparaging h
Allen v. Statepublic domain
200 Ga. App. 326 (1991) 408 S.E.2d 127 ALLEN v. THE STATE. A91A0273. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided June 20, 1991. Reconsideration Denied July 5, 1991. *329 Ralph J. Hunstein, for appellant. Thomas C. Lawler III, District Attorney, David K. Keeton, Debra K. Turner, A
Roache v. Bucholzpublic domain
PER CURIAM: Allen James Roache, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1983 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Roache v. Bucholz, No. CA-03-81-4 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 10, 2003; Nov. 5, 2003; Nov. 20, 2003; filed Jan. 16, 2004 &am;
Mazanec v. North Judson-San Pierre School Corp.public domain
614 F.Supp. 1152 (1985) Richard MAZANEC, Barbara Mazanec, Patricia Mazanec, Susan Mazanec, Angela Mazanec, and the Greenhouse Academy, a not-for-profit corporation, Plaintiffs, v. NORTH JUDSON-SAN PIERRE SCHOOL CORPORATION, James F. Moore, Superintendent of North Judson-San Pierre School Corporation, Steven J. Moerlein, Prosecuting Attorney for the 44th Judicial Circuit of the State of Indiana, Marilyn Mabry, State Attendance Officer for the Stat
State v. Reidpublic domain
383 S.C. 285 (2009) 679 S.E.2d 194 The STATE, Respondent, v. Jamey Allen REID, Appellant. No. 4574. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Heard May 12, 2009. Decided June 25, 2009. Rehearing Denied July 22, 2009. *289 Appellate Defender Katherine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for
WellStar Health System, Inc. v. Suttonpublic domain
MCFADDEN, Judge. These related appeals arise from a mistrial in a medical malpractice case. The defendant hospital challenges the trial court’s declaration of a mistrial and denial of its motion to set aside the mistrial and enter judgment in its favor. But the hospital acquiesced in the court’s decision to declare a mistrial. More fundamentally, there was no verdict upon which to enter such a judgment. The defendant doctor
Kanfer v. Pharmacare US, Inc.public domain
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge. ’ On July 6, 2015, Defendant Pharmacare US, Inc. filed a motion to¡ dismiss and strike portions of Plaintiff Jonathan Kan-fer’s first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 32.) Plaintiff opposed the motion on September 14, 2015. (Doc. No. 33.) Defendant replied on September 21,2015. (Doc. No. 34.) On September 23, 2015, the