Cases

101 B.R. 411 (1989) In re HBA EAST, INC., Round One Productions, Inc., Jeffrey D. Levine, Debtors. Bankruptcy No. 187-70557-353. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York. June 22, 1989. *412 Arthur Steinberg, John P. Sirico, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, Norman Klasfeld, Beal, Klasfeld, Lentz & Romash, New York Cit

87 B.R. 248 (1988) In re HBA EAST, INC., Round One Productions, Inc., Jeffrey D. Levine, Debtors. Bankruptcy No. 187-70557-353. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York. June 3, 1988. *249 Arthur Steinberg, John P. Sirico, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, Norman Klasfeld, Beal, Klasfeld, Lentz & Romash, New York City,

OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAMS, Judge. In this post-award bid protest, Ettefaq-Meliat-Hai-Afghan Consulting, Inc., (“EMA”) challenges the awards of multiple contracts by the Department of the Army, CENTCOM Contracting Command (“Army”) for trucking services in the Afghanistan Theater of Operations.2 The Army disqualified EMA from receiving an award on the ground that EMA was nonres

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-1419 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALMART STORES EAST, L.P., and WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States Distri

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-1690 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., doing business as Wal-Mart Distribution Center #6025, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ A

884 N.E.2d 700 (2008) 378 Ill. App.3d 713 ILLINOIS NON-PROFIT RISK MANAGEMENT ASSOCATION, Plaintiff, v. HUMAN SERVICE CENTER OF SOUTHERN METRO-EAST, Trade Industries, Career Development Center, Five Star Industries, and Lawrence Crawford Association for Exceptional Citizens, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants (Risk Management Administrators, Inc., Stanley W. Murray, David Stover, Kenneth Best, Greg Shaver, Th

713 S.W.2d 456 (1986) 289 Ark. 539 EAST TEXAS MOTOR FREIGHT LINES, INC., Appellant, v. Ellen FREEMAN, Denise Clark, Ted Clifton Tullos, Sr., Individually and For the Use and Benefit of Ted Clifton Tullos, Jr., A Minor, and Clifford Gillespie, Appellees. No. 85-240. Supreme Court of Arkansas. July 21, 1986. *458</

MEMORANDUM & ORDER SEYBERT, District Judge: Plaintiffs, a group of airport users and aviation companies that frequently use the East Hampton Airport, bring this,action against the Town of East Hampton, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining enforcement of Sections 75-38 and 75-39 of the Town of East Hampton Code, recently adopted town laws that impose access restrictions to the Ea

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. 22-CV-0884 MAYOR MURIEL BOWSER, et al., APPELLANTS, V. DUPONT EAST CIVIC ACTION ASSOCIATIO

167 P.3d 464 (2007) 214 Or. App. 573 EAST COUNTY RECYCLING, INC., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PNEUMATIC CONSTRUCTION, INC., an assumed business name of PCI Mechanical Construction; Pneumatic Construction, Inc., an assumed business name of PCI Waste and Recycling Systems and Recycling Equipment Manufacturing, Inc., a foreign corporation, Defendants, and International Baler Corporation, a foreign corpo

*490 Chief Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court. The parties dispute the compensation due for condemnation of land with a freestanding billboard used for outdoor advertising, an issue we considered not long ago in State v. Central Expressway Sign Associates (“CE

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL IX NORTH EAST ASSET Revisión procedente CORPORATION del Departamento de REPRESENTADO POR Asuntos del ASTRID DÍAZ Consumidor, Región de Mayagüez

WM. MATTHEW BYRNE, Jr., District Judge: Appellee Lee brought this action to recover for personal injuries sustained while working as a standby maintenance man on appellant’s vessel. The case was presented to the jury on the theories of both negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688,

240 B.R. 180 (1999) In re CALDOR, INC.-NY, The Caldor Corporation, Caldor, Inc.-CT, et al., Debtors. Bankruptcy No. 95 B 44080(JLG). United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York. October 22, 1999. *181 *182 Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, LLP, New York City, for debtors. Robert E.

425 F.Supp. 1239 (1977) PACIFIC FAR EAST LINE, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff, v. OGDEN CORPORATION, a corporation, et al., Defendants. No. C-76-2063-CBR. United States District Court, N. D. California. January 17, 1977. *1240 *1241 James D. Boughey, Peter A. Lindh, Gerald A. Buckosky, Dorr, C

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge: Martha Isham brought this personal injury action against Pacific Far East Line, Inc. (hereinafter Far East) in the District Court of Guam. Jurisdiction was based on diversity and the Organic Act of Guam, 48 U.S.C. § 1424(a). Her husband was stationed on Guam while serving in the Navy. I

314 F.Supp. 1339 (1970) In the Matter of the Complaint of PACIFIC FAR EAST LINE, INC., a corporation, for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability as Owner of the American Flag STEAMSHIP GUAM BEAR. No. 47077. United States District Court, N. D. California. June 15, 1970. *1340 Dorr, Cooper & Hays, John Hays, William K. Mordock, Sa

CHOY, Circuit Judge: Appellant, Hartford Fire Insurance Company (Hartford) appeals from an interlocutory judgment limiting the liability of appellee, Pacific Far East Lines (PFEL), to $500 for damage to an electrical transformer shipped aboard appellee’s vessel, the SS Pacific Bear. Judgment was granted after a separate trial held pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 42(b) and jurisdiction resides here under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). We revers

OPINION OF THE COURT SCHNACKE, District Judge. The sole question before the Court at this stage of these proceedings is whether the liability of defendant carrier for alleged damage to certain cargo shipped by plaintiff’s subrogor, which cargo is hereinafter more fully described, is limited to $500, by virtue of Section 4(5), 46 U.S.C., Sec. 1304(5), of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, commonly referred

MUSGRAVE, Senior Judge: This matter, most lately embodied in the second Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (“RR2”) concerning the antidumping duty investigation into Certain Coated Paper from the PRC, 1 must be remanded a third time due