Cases

819 F.Supp.2d 1249 (2011) Joi BROWN, Plaintiff, v. Gerald L. NORRIS, Defendant. Case No. 5:07-CV-1013-VEH. United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division. October 14, 2011. *1250 Henry F. Sherrod, III, Henry F. Sherrod III PC, Florence, AL, for Plaintiff. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before COLEMAN, PECK ** and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: On June 1, 1981, the United States Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part a decision of this court, 621 F.2d 130 (5th Cir. 1980), affirming the district courts’, 458 F.Supp. 1387, 430 F.Supp. 1064, holdings in each o

KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge. The common issues binding these consolidated cases are whether a finance company, Ford Motor Credit Co. [Ford], which routinely finances the sale of automobiles by dealers in exchange for assignment of the original note from the purchaser (1) is a creditor within the meaning of the Truth-in-Lending Act, and (2) whether designation of Ford as “subsequent assignee” ade

The plaintiff, Tammy Jo Norris, appeals from a judgment based on a directed verdict for the defendant in a premises liability action. Ms. Norris sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., alleging that the Muscle Shoals Wal-Mart store in Colbert County had not exercised proper care in stocking items, and that, as a result of its failure to properly maintain the stocked items or a failure to warn customers of the danger caused by the items, she was injured. On January 28, 1993, the case was tried bef

666 F.2d 97 Janet CENANCE, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.BOHN FORD, INC., Defendant-Appellant,Ford Motor Credit Company, Defendant-Appellant.Nicole ANTONIO, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.CANAL MOTORS, INC., Defendant,Ford Motor Credit Company, Defendant-Appellee.Marion SHROPSHIRE, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.GEORGE THOMPSON FORD, INC., Defendant-Appellee,v.FORD MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.Solomon WIGGS,

621 F.2d 130 Janet CENANCE, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.BOHN FORD, INC., Defendant-Appellant,Ford Motor Credit Company, Defendant-Appellant.Nicole ANTONIO, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.CANAL MOTORS, INC., Defendant,Ford Motor Credit Company, Defendant-Appellee.Marion SHROPSHIRE, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.GEORGE THOMPSON FORD, INC., Defendant-Appellee,v.FORD MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.Solomon WIGGS

THOMAS, J. John Doe, individually, and d/b/a Doe Trucking Company (collectively referred to as Doe), argues the circuit court erred in denying Doe’s motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) because (1) the sworn *393witness affidavit of Anthony Bernardo failed to satisfy the requirements of section 38-77-170(2) of the South Carolina

McKEAGUE, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which NORRIS, J., joined, and WHITE, J., joined in part. WHITE, J. (pp. 632^43), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. OPINION McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs-appellants Lowestco Ballard and Geneva France were framed during Operation Turnaround, a corrupt investigation into the Mansfield, Ohio dru

609 F.3d 338 (2010) AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. US AIRWAYS GROUP, INCORPORATED; US Airways, Incorporated; Piedmont Airlines; PSA Airlines, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees, US Airline Pilots Association, Party-in-Interest-Appellee. No. 09-2083. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued May 12, 2010. Dec

This appeal is from the trial court's decision, finding appellant, William Clites, guilty of driving under suspension in violation of R.C. 4507.02, and was submitted to this court on the briefs of counsel. On July 2, 1989, Officer Gyoker, a Brimfield Township patrolman, observed appellant traveling north on State Route 43 at approximately 1:56 a.m. The officer testified that he observed the appellant's automobile "straddling both northbound lanes" or

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-CV-628 RACHEL M. FRANKENY, APPELLANT, v. DISTRICT HOSPITAL PARTNERS, LP,

341 F.Supp.2d 961 (2003) Fred GARNER, Plaintiff, v. DILLARD'S DEPARTMENT STORE, INC., Shelby County Sheriff Dept., Kenneth Roberson, Individually, Defendants. No. 02-2017 M1/A. United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division. March 7, 2003. *962 Linda Kendall Garner, Esq., Law Office of Linda Kendall Garner, Memphi

SHAW, Justice (concurring specially). I concur in overruling the application for rehearing. I write specially to address some of the concerns expressed by the parties and amici curiae in briefs filed on application for rehearing. Arguments Advanced by Homewood and Suttles As noted in the opinion on original submission, the first question certified for this

358 S.C. 498 (2004) 596 S.E.2d 67 Linda ANGUS, Appellant, v. BURROUGHS & CHAPIN CO., Myrtle Beach Herald, Doug Wendel, Pat Dowling, Deborah Johnson, Chandler C. Prosser, Marvin Heyd, Chandler Brigham, and Terry Cooper, Respondents. No. 3744. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Heard September 9, 2003. Decided February 9, 2004.

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 600 U. S. Part 1 Pages 551–569 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 30, 2023 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requ

387 S.C. 22 (2010) 691 S.E.2d 135 Donald C. AUSTIN, Respondent/Appellant, v. STOKES-CRAVEN HOLDING CORP., d/b/a Stokes Craven Ford, Appellant/Respondent. No. 26784. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard June 11, 2009. Decided March 8, 2010. Rehearing Denied April 21, 2010. *31</

THE COURT: And you, by 2013, you had multiple occasions to interact with Mr. Vanderhall? MR. HATFIELD: No, sir. No, we did not. You know, he was a quadriplegic. His mother, Theresa Vanderhall, was actually our go between. As you remember from the-I'll call it the Vanderhall State Farm[-]I, Miss Vanderhall was the one who engaged us shortly after the accident. And our dealings wer

CHIEF JUSTICE RICE, dissenting in part and concurring in part. ¶74 The majority concludes that the water court erred when it: (1) concluded that stor*471age of the Busk-Ivanhoe rights on the eastern slope prior to use was lawful; (2) included the volumes of exported water paid as rental fees for storage on the eastern s

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR., District Judge. Before the Court comes ' Defendant Memphis'Light, Gas & Water’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed March 31, 2015. (ECF No. 44). On May 4, 2015, Plaintiff Andrea Mosby Meachem filed her Response in Opposition, (ECF No. 53), to which Defendant filed a Reply on May 29, 2015, (ECF No. 56).1

MOSK, J.,* Dissenting. I respectfully dissent. One can sympathize with any party that is sued and prevails. The cost in money and reputation can be significant. (Here, the Mint* 1 was fortunate to have recovered its attorney fees incurred in defending the claims and an additional sum from the party that sued it.) But that does