Cases

12 F.3d 1270 62 USLW 2425 FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Subrogee of Mutual Group, Ltd.,N.R.G. America Holding Company d/b/a PhiladelphiaReinsurance Company, N.R.G. American Holding Company d/b/aN.R.G. American Life, Wertheim Schroder & Co., Inc., PaineWebber Group, Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, Scudder,Stevens & Clark, Inc., Pitcairn Private Bank, the PalmieriCompany, 1838 Investment Ad

WADDILE, Circuit Judge. This is an action of debt, brought by the plaintiff in.error against the defendant in error, to recover an indebtedness of $22,649.25, with interest, paid by plaintiff in error to R. C. Hoffman & Co., Inc., being the amount of a judgment of the superior court of Baltimore city against the Chicago Bonding & Insurance Company, a body corporate, of which the plaintiff in error was the successor, and w

Chichester, J., delivered the opinion of the court. *374The only contest in this litigation is between W. F. . Grandy, receiver of the American Bonding and Casualty Company of Sioux City, Iowa, hereafter referred to as appellant, and the mortgage bondholders of the Washington-Virginia Railway Company, which company being insolvent is represented in the l

307 F.3d 794 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Loretta M. LYNCH; Henry M. Duque; Richard A. Bilas; Carl W. Wood; Geoffrey F. Brown, Commissioners of California Public Utilities Commission, Defendants-Appellees.Utility Reform Network, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant.Southern California Edison Company, Plaintiff-Appellee,Reliant Energy Services, Inc.; Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, LP, Intervenors-Appellan

257 F.2d 634 OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS COMPANY, Petitioner,v.FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent,Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, et al., Intervenors. No. 13783. United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. Argued February 5, 1958. Decided May 22, 1958. Mr. John S. C

736 N.E.2d 196 (2000) 316 Ill. App.3d 254 249 Ill.Dec. 354 ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY, Ameren Corporation, Central Illinois Public Service Company, and Union Electric Company, Petitioners, v. ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION; The State of Illinois; The County of Cook; Illinois Industrial Energy Consumers; Enron Energy Services, Inc.; Northern Illinois Gas Company, d/b/a Nicor Gas; International Brotherhood

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1655 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. ------------------------------ STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; STATE

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 07-1945 AMBROSIA LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, and ILLINOIS MINE SUBSIDENCE INSURANCE FUND, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEABODY COAL COMPANY,

OPINION OF THE COURT COWEN, Circuit Judge. .These eases arise from the February 23, 1991 fire that engulfed One Meridian Plaza, an office building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The catastrophic fire resulted in substantial destruction of the thirty-eight story office tower, the deaths of three firefighters who responded to the blaze, and lawsuits alleging losses of nearly $600 million. While procedura

653 F.3d 496 (2011) KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. and Norfolk Southern Railway Co., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Russell E. KOELLER, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 10-2333. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued September 29, 2010. Decided July 27, 2011. *498 Paul M. Brown (argued), Attorney,

658 F.Supp.2d 921 (2009) LUXPRO CORPORATION, a Taiwanese corporation, Plaintiff v. APPLE, INC., f/k/a Apple Computer, Inc., Defendant. Case No. 08-CV-4092. United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division. September 28, 2009. *924 Glenn E. Janik, Patrick J. Conroy, Shore Chan Bragalone LLP, Dallas, TX, Richard A. A

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 2 Wolgast Corp. v. NLRB Nos. 01-1904/2056 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2003 FED App. 0389P (6th Cir.) File Name: 03a0389p.06 Before: MERRITT and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges; RUSSELL, District Judge.** UNITED STATES

MARCUS, Circuit Judge: These consolidated appeals arise out of an unprecedented storm season in which four hurricanes — Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne — hit Florida within one six-week period during 2004. In response, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) disbursed $1.2 billion in individual disaster assistance to more than 605,500 Floridians, and als

260 B.R. 213 (1998) In re TOWER ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., Debtor. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Plaintiff, v. State of Florida, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 95-7219-8G1. Adversary No. 96-679. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. September 9, 1998. *214 *215

668 F.Supp.2d 1085 (2009) Roseland McGRATH, Plaintiff v. EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 2:07 cv 34. United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division. September 23, 2009. Opinion Denying Reconsideration, Certification and Stay January 15, 2010. *1089 Donald W. Wruck, III, Jason

OPINION MERRITT, Circuit Judge. The central issue in this case is whether nonemployee union representatives of the organized employees of a construction subcontractor, whose collective bargaining agreement contains a union access clause, can be categorically barred from a construction jobsite by the contractor with the

Case: 14-41127 Document: 00513601530 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/20/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 20, 2016 No. 14-41127

OPINION THOMAS, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, we review the district court’s order entering a stipulated judgment in an action brought by Southern California Edison Co. (“SoCal Edison”), an electric public utility that provides retail electric service in Southern California, against the Commissioners (“Commissioners”) of the California Public Utilities Commission (“the Commission”), which regulates the r

68 F.Supp.2d 1037 (1999) RSR CORPORATION and Quemetco, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. AVANTI DEVELOPMENT, INC., et al., Defendant. No. IP 95-1359-C-M/S. United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division. September 2, 1999. *1038 William A. Brewer III, Bickel & Brewer, Dallas, TX, Deborah Deitsch-Perez, Bickel & Brew

NlMS, C.J., dissenting: In concluding that the statute would allow petitioner to supply any necessary signatures omitted from the original recapture agreement, the majority first sidesteps an important issue unrelated' to section 2032A(d)(3) and then disregards both legislative history and relevant precedent when applying that section. The issue the majority expressly avoids is whether, withou