Cases

765 N.E.2d 1238 (2002) INDIANA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant (Defendant below), v. Jessah MARTIN, Appellee (Plaintiff below). No. 02S03-0106-CV-312. Supreme Court of Indiana. April 10, 2002. *1239 Robert M. Baker III, Johnson, Smith, Pence, & Heath LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant. Edwa

741 N.E.2d 775 (2000) INDIANA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, INC., Bob Gardner, In his capacity as Commissioner of the Indiana High School Athletic Association, Inc., and Mary Keefer, in her capacity as Principal of Bishop Luers High School, Appellants-Defendants, v. Jessah MARTIN, Appellee-Plaintiff. No. 02A05-0005-CV-178. Court of Appeals of Indiana. December 29, 2000.

808 N.E.2d 737 (2004) MEDICAL ASSURANCE OF INDIANA and R.C. Patel, M.D., Appellants, v. Sally McCARTY, in her capacity as Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance and Administrator of the Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund, Appellees. No. 49A02-0401-CV-83. Court of Appeals of Indiana. May 20, 2004. *739 John David Hoo

741 N.E.2d 757 (2000) INDIANA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, INC., Bob Gardner, In his capacity as Commissioner of the Indiana High School Athletic Association, Inc., and Mary Keefer, in her capacity as Principal of Bishop Luers High School, Appellants-Defendants, v. Jessah MARTIN, Appellee-Plaintiff. No. 02A03-0001-CV-029. Court of Appeals of Indiana. December 29, 2000.

ON PETITION TO TRANSFER SULLIVAN, Justice. This appeal arises from the issuance of a preliminary injunction against the Indiana High School Athletie Association ("IHSAA") and in favor of Jessah Martin ("Martin"). For more background, see our companion decision, Indiana High School Athletic Ass'n, Inc. v. Martin, 765 N.E.2d 1239 (Ind.2002), also decided today.

OPINION ROBB, Judge Case Summary Indiana High School Athletic Association (“IHSAA”) appeals the trial court’s grant of injunctive relief for Jessah Martin. We affirm. ' Issue IHSAA raises one issue for our review which we restate as whether the trial court *4properly granted

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed August 26, 2022 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-01081-CV BARBARA LINDSEY, Appellant V. MAX F. ADLER, M.D., P.A. F/K/A PARK CITIES DERMATOLOGY CENTER A/K/A COPPELL DERMATOLOGY, MAX F. ADLER, AND LINDA L. WHITE, AND JOHN D

ORDER HEMPHILL, District Judge. Plaintiff, seeking relief from an adverse jury verdict, moves for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or, in the alternative for a new trial. He sets forth thirteen grounds upon which he insists a judgment n. o. v. or new trial should be granted, argues five, which this court reviews. GROUNDS 3 THE ONLY REASONABLE INFERENCE TO BE

545 U.S. 913 (2005) METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC. ET AL. v. GROKSTER, LTD., ET AL. No. 04-480. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 29, 2005. Decided June 27, 2005. *916 Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs for the motion picture studio and recording

Cite as 2026 Ark. 57 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-25-396 Opinion Delivered April 9, 2026 ARKANSAS HIGHWAY POLICE, A DIVISION OF THE ARKANSAS APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI STATE HIGHWAY AND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT [NO. 60CV-24-1957] APPELLANT HONORABLE CARA CONNORS,

WILLIAM RAY PRICE, JR., Chief Justice, dissenting opinion. Steve and Anita Ritchie brought a claim under their Allied insurance policy for the death of their daughter. She was a passenger in a car driven by Noah Heath that collided with a car driven by Adam Tom-blin. Although the Richies obtained a judgment against Mr. Heath and Mr. Tom-blin in the amount of $1.8 million, they only recovered $60,000 because b

USCA11 Case: 20-14109 Date Filed: 04/01/2022 Page: 1 of 19 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-14109 ____________________ SHELDON CHO, MD, Relators and on behalf of the States of Florida, Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas, DAWN

Appellate Case: 20-1230 Document: 010110769600 Date Filed: 11/15/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 15, 2022 _______

BOLIN, Justice. Betty Bradberry and Inez T. Jones, as the “personal representatives of the heirs-at-law [1] and/or wrongful death beneficiaries of’ the decedents, Roland E. Bradber-ry and George D. Jones, respectively (“the plaintiffs”), appeal from summary judgments in favor of Carrier Corporation and multiple other defendants (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the defendants”) in the p

FLOYD, Circuit Judge: The False Claims Act (FCA) empowers private individuals acting on behalf of the government to bring civil actions against those that defraud the government. The FCA contains a provision, known as the “fírst-to-file” rule, which bars these private individuals, known as- relators, from bringing actions under the FCA while a related action is pending. In this case, back before this Court for a third time, we

DICKSON, Justice, concurring and dissenting. I agree with the majority that the Indiana State High School Athletics Association (“IHSAA”) is subject to common law oversight in Indiana’s courts and that IHSAA action is equivalent to “state action” subjecting it to judicial enforcement for violations of the federal or state constitutions. However, I disagree with the majority’s gr

731 N.E.2d 1 (2000) INDIANA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, INC., and Bob Gardner, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Indiana High School Athletic Association, Inc., and Mary Keefer, in her capacity as Principal of Bishop Luers High School, Appellants-Defendants, v. Jessah MARTIN, Appellee-Plaintiff. No. 02A03-9912-CV-460. Court of Appeals of Indiana. June 14, 2000.

154 B.R. 185 (1993) In re Nadeem NAJAFI, Debtor. Nadeem NAJAFI, Plaintiff, v. CABRINI COLLEGE, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 92-17427S, Adv. No. 93-0034S. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. May 13, 1993. *186 Robert F. Salvin, Philadelphia, PA, for debtor. *187 Edward L.

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued December 1, 2015 Decided October 20, 2016 No. 11-1324 ALI HAMZA AHMAD SULIMAN AL BAHLUL, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT On Petition for Rehearing En Banc Michel Paradis, Counsel, Office of the Chief Defense Counsel, argued th

The opinion of the Court was delivered by JoHNSTON, Ch. Upon the subject of the continuance, this Court is of opinion, that the Chancellor’s discretion was well exercised. Indeed, it is hardly proper to say that the motion to continue was properly brought before him. The accounts were before the commissioner, and it was to him the motion should have been submitted before the close of the reference. This was not