Cases

445 B.R. 677 (2011) In re Robert Warren JONES, Debtor. Tiffany Mullen and Mike Mullen, Plaintiffs, v. Robert Warren Jones, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 08-36014-SGJ-7. Adversary No. 09-03051-SGJ. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. February 3, 2011. *685 Brian Patrick Shaw, Derek D. Rollins, Leland C. de

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project, and ten residents of Northern California (collectively “NORML”), brought this class action against various state and federal entities participating in the Campaign Against Marijuana Planting (“CAMP”). The complaint alleges that CAMP violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the fourth amendment to

OPINION THOMAS T. WOODALL, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAVID H. WELLES and JERRY L. SMITH, JJ., joined. *520 Defendant, Stevan Craig Mullen, was indicted by the Franklin County Grand Jury for driving with a

OPINION BY JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN In this appeal, we consider the evidence required to submit a question of gross negligence to a jury. BACKGROUND This matter arises from a wrongful death suit brought by Chancy M. Elliott (Elliott) on behalf of the estate of Caleb McKinley Smith (Caleb), alleging gross negligence on the part of Trevor Cart

ORDER AND OPINION Robert G. Doumar, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter comes before the Court on opposing requests for declaratory 'judgment regarding Selective Way Insurance Company’s (“Plaintiff’ or “Selective”) al*549leged duty to defend and indemnify Crawl Space Door System, Inc. d/b/a/ Crawl Space Door Systems, Inc. (“Defendan

281 F.Supp.2d 786 (2003) In re DUKE ENERGY ERISA LITIGATION This Document Relates To: All Actions No. 3:02CV291-MU. United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division. June 23, 2003. *787 *788 Geraldine Sumter, Ferguson, Stein, Chambers, Adkins, Gresham & Sumter, Charlotte,

David Newbern, Justice. The question presented here is whether there is a limit on the time within which a court may grant a timely motion for a new trial. We hold that the trial court loses jurisdiction to rule on the motion ninety days after the judgment is filed with the clerk. Therefore, we reverse the court’s granting of the new trial motion on July 1,1985, with respect to a judgment filed February

ORDER GRAHAM C. MULLEN, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on a petition to vacate an arbitration award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 10(a), filed pro se by Petitioner Harold E. Blackwell, Jr. (“Petitioner”). (Doc. No. 1). Respondent Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (“Respondent”) is Petitioner’s former em

OPINION BY JUSTICE WILLIAM C. MIMS In this appeal, we consider the extent to which a corporate taxpayer must include in its Virginia taxable income royalties paid to an intangible holding company. I. Background and Procedural History Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. ("Kohl's") is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware. It operates r

828 F.2d 536 9 Fed.R.Serv.3d 51 NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS; theCivil Liberties Monitoring Project, Inc., a Californianonprofit corporation; National Organization for the Reformof Marijuana Laws, a non-profit District of ColumbiaCorporation; the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project, Inc.,a California Non-Profit Corporation; Richard Jay Moller, aCalifornia citizen; Ka

OPINION OF THE COURT Harold J. Hughes, J. The issue raised on this motion is whether the making of a motion to dismiss a complaint as untimely served extends the time to serve an answer thereto. The court holds that when a defendant rejects a complaint as untimely served and moves for dismissal under CPLR 3012, and that motion is denied, the time in which to answer is extended until

OPINION BY JUSTICE WILLIAM C. MIMS In this appeal, we consider the extent to which a corporate taxpayer must include in its Virginia taxable income royalties paid to an intangible holding company. 1 I. Background and Procedural History Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. ("

639 F.3d 111 (2011) PBM PRODUCTS, LLC; PBM Nutritionals, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, and Paul Manning; Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, Defendants. No. 10-1421. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued: January 27, 2011. Decided: April 20, 2011. *116

808 N.E.2d 746 (2004) Milan STULAJTER, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. HARRAH'S INDIANA CORPORATION, Appellee-Defendant. No. 45A05-0311-CV-572. Court of Appeals of Indiana. May 20, 2004. *747 Elihu D. Feustel, Rowe & Rowe, South Bend, IN, Attorney for Appellant. Harold G. Hagberg, Matthew D. LaTulip, Hagberg, Mullen, LaTulip,

66 B.R. 886 (1986) In re Myron SNYDER, Debtor. Bankruptcy No. 84-1470-L. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts. September 30, 1986. *887 *888 Charles R. Dougherty, Hill & Barlow, Boston, Mass., for SAMPCO. John D. Mullen, Sheridan, Garrahan and Lander, Framingham, Mass., for Fram

420 S.E.2d 576 (1992) 187 W.Va. 585 Barbara Jane Clark LANGEVIN, Plaintiffs Below, Appellant, v. Harold Arthur LANGEVIN, Jr., Defendant Below, Appellee. No. 20076. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Submitted April 7, 1992. Decided June 26, 1992. *577 Hugh B. Rogers, Jr., Kerens, f

OPINION BUSH, Judge. Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc. (Navarro) filed its bid protest complaint in this court on January 30, 2012. In its complaint, Navarro challenges the decision of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to proceed with corrective action recommended by the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) related to a contract previously awarded to Navarro und

People v Jusino (2020 NY Slip Op 04182) People v Jusino 2020 NY Slip Op 04182 Decided on July 22, 2020 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 4

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.

APPEL, Justice. In this case, the court is confronted with an issue of first impression regarding minority appraisal rights of the shareholders of a state bank in a reverse stock split. Specifically, we address whether Iowa Code section 524.1406(3)(a) (2009) 1 applies to state banks in a reverse stock split. The distric