Cases

[Cite as State v. Street, 2023-Ohio-4405.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JEFFERSON COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEPHEN V. STREET, Defendant-Appe

648 F.Supp.2d 256 (2009) FIRST NEW YORK SECURITIES, L.L.C., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED RENTALS, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:07-cv-01708 (JCH). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. August 24, 2009. *257 Elias A. Alexiades, New Haven, CT, Andrew W. Skolnick, David A. Slossberg, Hurwitz Sagarin Slossberg

CHIN, Circuit Judge: On June 1, 2009, General Motors Corporation (“Old GM”), the nation’s largest manufacturer of automobiles and the creator of such iconic American brands as Chevrolet and Cadillac, filed for bankruptcy. During the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008, as access to credit tightened and consumer spending diminished, Old GM posted net losses of $70 billion over the course of a year and a half. The U.S. Department

OPINION OF THE COURT KRAUSE, Circuit Judge. The Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA) confers on coal workers generally the right to claim workers’ compensation benefits for disabilities arising out of coal dust exposure. 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-45. Typically, the burden of proof rests on the miner to

98 P.3d 491 (2004) ELLIOTT BAY SEAFOODS, INC., Appellant, v. The PORT OF SEATTLE, Respondent, ABC Corporations I-V, and John Does I-X, Defendants. No. 52842-4-I. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. July 12, 2004. Publication Ordered August 25, 2004. *492 William T. McKay, Luanne Perry, McKay Huffingto

¶1 Grosse, J. — While parol, extrinsic, or collateral evidence may be heard to explain the context and intent of the parties in entering into a written contract, it will not be heard to modify, contradict, add to, or vary the terms of that written agreement. Here the written agreement is a lease between Elliot Bay Seafoods, Inc. (EBS) and the Port of *8Seattl

762 F.Supp.2d 942 (2010) In re ENRON CORPORATION SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE & "ERISA" LITIGATION. Mark Newby, et al., Plaintiffs v. Enron Corporation, et al., Defendants. American National Insurance Company, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, et al., Defendants. No. MDL-1446, Civil Action Nos. H-01-3624, G-03-0967. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 12, 2014 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. VERNON ELLIOTT LOCKHART Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2010-C-2083 Cheryl Blackburn, Judge No. M2013-01275-CCA-R3-CD - Filed September 8, 2015 A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Vernon Elliott L

J-A11039-15 2015 PA Super 208 SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. 69TH STREET RETAIL MALL, L.P., 69TH STREET RETAIL OWNER, L.P., 69TH STREET GP, LLC, 69TH STREET GP II, LLC, AAC MANAGEMENT CORP., AND ASHKENAZY ACQUISITION CORP. Appellants No. 2359 EDA 2014 Appeal

183 F.Supp.2d 860 (2001) In re SECURITIES LITIGATION BMC SOFTWARE, INC. No. H-00-0359. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. October 1, 2001. *861 *862 *863 David E. Sharp, Roger B. Greenberg, Greenberg Peden et al., Thomas E. Bilek, Hoeffner

521 U.S. 457 (1997) GLICKMAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE v. WILEMAN BROTHERS & ELLIOTT, INC., et al. No. 95-1184. United States Supreme Court. Argued December 2, 1996. Decided June 25, 1997. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT *459 *459 Ste

281 F.Supp.2d 1260 (2003) COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. WALL STREET UNDERGROUND, INC., et al., Defendants. No. CIV. A. 03-2193-CM. United States District Court, D. Kansas. July 18, 2003. *1262 *1263 *1264 Melanie D. Caro, Office of Uni

Memorandum Opinion and Order Honorable Edmond E. Chang, United States District Judge The United States Securities and Exchange ' Commission brought this federal securities law action against various individual and corporate-entity defendants, asserting that they engaged in a Ponzi scheme to defraud investors.1 The SEC now moves for summary judgment against the one remaining, d

184 F.3d 280 (3rd Cir. 1999) IN RE: ROCKEFELLER CENTER PROPERTIES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATIONFRANK DEBORA; WILSON WHITE; STANLEY LLOYD KAUFMAN, JR.; JOSEPH GROSS, Appellants at No. 98-5394v.CHARAL INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC, a New Jersey Corporation; C.W. SOMMER & CO., a Texas Partnership, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; ALAN FREED; JERRY CRANCE; HELEN SCOZZANICH; SHELDON P. LANGENDORF; RITA WALFIELD; ROBERT

*249 MEMORANDUM OPINION LIAM O’GRADY, District Judge. This is a class action arising out of allegations of widespread accounting fraud perpetrated by the Mills Corporation and related entities, resulting in massive losses incurred by individual and institutional investors alike. For the reasons that follow, the Court here

215 Ga. App. 498 (1994) FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF GEORGIA v. DAVIES-ELLIOTT, INC. A94A1089. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided November 22, 1994. Reconsideration Denied December 6, 1994. *507 Newton, Smith, Durden, Kaufold & Rice, Howard C. Kaufold, Jr., for appellant. Spivey, Carlton &a;

468 F.Supp.2d 670 (2006) In Re INTELLIGROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION No. CIV.A. 04-4980(GEB). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. December 20, 2006. *671 *672 *673 *674 Joseph J. Depalma, Esq., Lite, Depalma, Greenberg &am;

527 F.Supp.2d 262 (2007) In re INTELLIGROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION. Civil Action No. 04-1980 (GEB). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. November 13, 2007. *263 *264 *265 *266 *267

Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge RANDOLPH. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge SRINIVASAN. On Petitions For Panel Rehearing. RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge: We assume familiarity with our opinion in National Association of Manufacturers v. SEC, 748 F.3d 359 (D.C.Cir.2014) (“NAM”).1 <

235 F.Supp.2d 549 (2002) In re ENRON CORPORATION SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE & ERISA LITIGATION. This Document Relates to All Cases. Mark Newby, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Enron Corporation, et al., Defendants. The Regents of the University of California, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kenneth L. Lay, et al., Defendants. MDL No. 1446 Civil Action No. H-01-36