Cases

235 Wis.2d 781 (2000) 2000 WI 68 611 N.W.2d 906 Thomas GRITZNER and Sandra Gritzner, parents and guardians of Tara G., a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, v. MICHAEL R., a minor, and Karen Rosetti, as parent of Michael R., Defendants, Roger BUBNER, as custodian of Michael R., and American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners. No. 98-03

Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed November 4, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Reversed and Remanded and Opinion filed December 21, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court Harr

OPINION OF THE COURT Abdus-Salaam, J. In these appeals, we are called upon to decide when, if ever, a manufacturer must warn against the danger inherent in using the manufacturer’s product together with a product designed and produced by another company. Consistent with our decision in Rastelli v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (79 NY2d 289 [1992]), we hold that the manufacturer of a product has a du

ACCEPTED 12-15-00216-CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 10/9/2015 2

OPINION AUSTIN McCLOUD, Senior Justice (Retired). This case involves the discovery rale. Plaintiffs,1 the owners of commercial pecan *246orchards, sued defendants2 for damages to plaintiffs’ pecan trees caused by the use of Benlate, a fungicide manufactured by E.I. du Pont d

914 F.2d 360 59 USLW 2168, Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P 12,567 ROBERTSON, Charles A. and Robertson, Era, H/W Rudolph, WayneR. and Rudolph, Elizabeth, H/W Grubb, John L. and Grubb,Marion L., H/W Stopfel, Larry C. and Stopfel, Mary Ann, H/WGincley, Ronald S. and Gincley, Lucille L., H/W Wertman,Winfred R. and Wertman, Charlotte, H/W Sgro, James A. andSgro, Carol, H/W Connelly, John J., Jr. and Connelly, Grace,

ORDER Upon consideration of the motion of the Federal Trade Commission for issuance of the mandate herein, and of the memoranda in support of and in opposition to the motion, it is, for the reasons expressed in the accompanying memorandum, ORDERED by the Court that the motion for issuance of the mandate be and hereby is denied; and it is Further ORDERED by the Court, sua sponte, that th

Opinion PER CURIAM. PER CURIAM: We review the decisions of the District Court granting summary judgment to the Federal Trade Commission (Commission or FTC) and enforcing the Commission’s orders requiring appellant corporations to file financial performance reports as part of the Line of Business (LB) and Corporate Patterns Report (CPR) surveys.1 These two broad-based statistical

JAMES G. CARR, District Judge. This discovery dispute arises out of litigation related to the manufacture and sale of contaminated heparin in 2007. Pending is plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants Baxter International, Inc. and Baxter Healthcare Corp. (Baxter) to produce documents pursuant to plaintiffs’ Third Set of Requests for Production (RFP).1 [Doc. 317]. Plaintiffs als

NOTICE: The attorneys on the attached list have the opportunity to comply with outstanding requirements prior to the effective date of the Supreme Court Order and not be administratively suspended. The current license status of a Pennsylvania attorney can be found on the Disciplinary Board’s website. https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-the- public/find-attorney Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Attorneys Certified for Administrative Suspensi

104 Wis.2d 552 (1981) 313 N.W.2d 47 Sisters Mary Joanne KOLLASCH, Mary David Walgenbach, Mary Raphael Hilger, Mary Concepta Tritz, Mary Philomena Head, Mary Baptista Schlitz, Mary Camillus Vandervoorde, Mary Grace Verzani, Mary Cora Marie Kesner, Mary Patricia Delaney, Mary Agatha Bermel, Mary Margaret Mary Finney, Mary Helen Goebel, Mary Martha Glaser, Mary Joyce Jungles, Mary Loretta Harvey, Mary Danielle Walgenbach, Mary Marian

Cite as 2015 Ark. 200 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS IN RE SUSPENSIONS OF Opinion Delivered May 7, 2015 ATTORNEYS WHO FAILED TO PAY ANNUAL ATTORNEY-LICENSE FEE PER CURIAM On May 14, 2014, we held unconstitutional former Rule VII(C) of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar to the extent the former rule provided for the suspension of attorneys

OPINION OF THE COURT MANSMANN, Circuit Judge. In this diversity matter we are asked to examine the substantive tort law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in order to determine the role of expert testimony and the so-called “fiber drift” theory in proving causation in cases of alleged asbestos-related injury. Because the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has not addressed the question before us, our task is to pre

647 F.2d 1124 207 U.S.App.D.C. 384, 1980-2 Trade Cases 63,441 DEERING MILLIKEN, INC., Appellant,v.FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al.DEERING-MILLIKEN, INC., Appellant,v.FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al.In re FTC LINE OF BUSINESS REPORT LITIGATION NL Industries,Inc., Appellant.In re FTC LINE OF BUSINESS REPORT LITIGATION Federal TradeCommission Parties, Appellants.In re FTC CORPORATE

THIS OPINION IS A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Hearing: Mailed: March 7, 2013 June 18, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board _____ Amanda Blackhorse, Marcus Briggs-Cloud, Philip Gover,

Supplemental Opinion Regarding Plan Conñrmation, Approving Settlements, and Approving Exit Financing STEVEN W. RHODES, Bankruptcy Judge. Table of Contents I. Introduction.159 II. The Plan CONFIRMATION Prooess. i — 1 ZD i — I A. The City’s Plans of Adjustment. i — 1 <

432 F.Supp. 291 (1977) In re FTC CORPORATE PATTERNS REPORT LITIGATION. In re FTC LINE OF BUSINESS REPORT LITIGATION. Misc. Nos. 76-0126, 76-0127. United States District Court, District of Columbia. April 12, 1977. *292 *293 *294 *2

OPINION RONALD J. HEDGES, United States Magistrate. INTRODUCTION Separate extradition hearings were conducted as to defendants Sukhminder Singh and Ranjit Singh Gill during the first week of February, 1988. The Court concluded that defendants were extraditable to the Republic of India. See Certifications of Extraditability and Orders of Commitment filed February 5, 1988 (“the Certificat

595 F.2d 685 193 U.S.App.D.C. 300, 1978-2 Trade Cases 62,152 Appeal of FTC LINE OF BUSINESS REPORT LITIGATION.Appeal of FTC LINE OF BUSINESS REPORT LITIGATION AMERICANCYANAMID COMPANY et al.DEERING MILLIKEN, INC., Appellant,v.FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION et al. (three cases).Appeal of FTC LINE OF BUSINESS REPORT LITIGATION NL INDUSTRIES, INC.Appeal of FTC LINE OF BUSINESS REPORT LITIGATION FEDE