Cases

DONOVAN W. FRANK, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court following remand on three separate matters. First, the parties dispute the proper disposition *978of Plaintiffs' remaining Phase One counts in light of the Eighth Circuit's decision. (See Doc. Nos. 1095, 1097, 1

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. Class plaintiffs, civilly committed sex offenders, bring a facial and as applied challenge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming their substantive due process rights have been violated by Minnesota’s Civil Commitment and Treatment Act and by the actions and practices of the managers of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). The Minnesota state defendants

PER CURIAM: Defendants David T. Smith and the City of Key West (collectively “defendants”) moved for panel rehearing of an opinion originally filed on October 5, 2017 and reported at — Fed.Appx. -, 2017 WL 4422465. Defendants also moved for publication of the opinion. We grant in part and deny in part the defendants’ motion for panel rehearing, grant th

WILBUR, Justice. [¶ 1.] Briley Piper pleaded guilty to several offenses, including felony murder. The plea-taking court sentenced Piper to death on the murder charge. This Court affirmed Piper’s death sentence. Piper then sought habeas relief claiming that he did not validly waive his right to have a jury determine whether to impose the death penalty. This Court granted Piper’s w

38 F.Supp.2d 771 (1999) PIPER JAFFRAY COMPANIES INC., Piper Jaffray Inc., Piper Capital Management Incorporated and Piper Funds Inc., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, Reliance National Indemnity Company and Executive Specialty Insurance Company, Defendants. No. Civ. 4-96-1143(MJD/RLE). United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

[Cite as Ross v. Wendel, 2017-Ohio-7804.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLERMONT COUNTY EARNIE ROSS, et al., : CASE NO. CA2016-10-070 Plaintiffs-Appellants, : OPINION

MEMORANDUM & ORDER DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The Supreme Court in Elonis v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2001, 192 L.Ed.2d 1 (2015) definitively held that a jury instruction of the type I had earlier used in this case involving allegations of threats—and that the First Circuit had affirmed, United States v. Clemens, 738 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1948 ___________________________ Sarasota Wine Market, LLC, et al. lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants v. Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General of Missouri, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Marcia Gay Piper v. Civil No. 16-cv-455-JL Opinion No. 2018 DNH 060 Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Social Security Administration, ORDER ON APPEAL Marcia Gay Piper has appealed the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) denial of her application for a period of disability and disa

OPINION AND ORDER JAMES L. GRAHAM, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (docs. 47-51, 70). The Plaintiffs commenced the instant action against certain attorneys and their law offices that the Ohio Attorney General (OAG) has appointed to act as special counsel to collect debts owed to the State of Ohio. The Plaintiffs are Ohio residents

792 F.Supp. 1189 (1992) In re PIPER AIRCRAFT. Christopher VERBIL, Plaintiff, v. AVCO CORPORATION, Piper Aircraft Corporation, et al. and consolidated actions. Nos. C 89-20290 JW, C-89-20377 JW, C-89-20390 SW and C-89-20402 JW. United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. April 27, 1992. Second Amended Final Judgment May 5, 1992.

OPINION SIMANDLE, Chief Judge: [[Image here]] I. INTRODUCTION This action is a putative class action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, on behalf of persons who received unsolicited fax advertisements from Defendant David Randall Associates, Inc. (“David Randall”) and its owner Defendant Raymond Miley, III, (hereafter “Defe

317 F.Supp.2d 373 (2004) TRADAX ENERGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. CEDAR PETROCHEMICALS, INC., Defendant. No. 03 Civ. 997(VM). United States District Court, S.D. New York. April 28, 2004. *374 Eric D. Grayson, Greenwich, CT, for defendant. Michael Robert Hepworth, Piper & Marbury L.L.P., New York, NY, David P. Langlois, Piper

[Cite as In re J.P., 2019-Ohio-197.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY IN THE MATTER OF: : J.P. : CASE NO. CA2018-01-011 : OPINION

MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLIAM D. QUARLES, JR., District Judge. Branhaven, LLC (“Branhaven”) sued BeefTek, Inc. (“BeefTek”), BT Selection, LLC (“BTS”), and PrimeBeefMarker, LLC (“PML”) (collectively the “defendants”) 1 for declaratory judgment and an injunction. The defendants counterclaimed, joining Scidera, Inc. (“Scidera”) as a counterdefendant, for declaratory judgment and spe

[Cite as State v. Colquitt, 2025-Ohio-2727.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Appellee, : CASE NOS. CA2024-12-090 CA2024-12-094

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’MOTION TO DISMISS MARTIN GLENN, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Defendants Leucadia National Corporation (“Leucadia”), Baldwin Enterprises, Inc. (“Baldwin”), BEI Prepaid, LLC (“BEI Prepaid”), BEI Prepaid Holdings, LLC (“BEI Prepaid Holdings”), Phlcorp, Inc. (“Phlcorp”), Ian Cumming, Joseph Stein-berg, David Larsen, and

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, David M. Kissi appeals from the district court’s orders denying as frivolous his multiple mo*218tions for recusal, return of fees, and to dissolve a prefiling injunction. We have

OPINION2 BY: KEVIN J. CAREY, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Before the Court is the Motion of Roma Dining, LLC and RomaCorp, Inc. (jointly, *114“Roma”) for an order (i) finding as a matter of law that a trademark license agreement cannot be assumed and assigned, even if it had not been terminated pre-petition, and (ii)

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, David M. Kissi appeals from the district court’s orders denying as frivolous his multiple mo*218tions for recusal, return of fees, and to dissolve a prefiling injunction. We have