Cases

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERNEST DEWAYNE JONES, No. 14-56373 Petitioner-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:09-CV-02158-CJC RON DAVIS, Warden, Respondent-Appellant. OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: JULIA BLACKWELL GELINAS DAVID K. HERZOG MAGGIE L. SMITH JON LARAMORE Frost Brown Todd LLC APRIL E. SELLERS Indianapolis, Indiana Baker & Daniels LLP FILED Indianapolis, Indiana ROBERT D. EMMERSON S

WORKMAN, Justice, dissenting, joined by DAVIS, Justice. I cannot and will not agree to join an opinion which, in effect, arrogantly assumes the position that a select group of individuals, namely appellate judges, are better able to determine the credibility of witnesses and the facts of the case than are the group of average citizens who sat as jurors and actually watched the evidence unfold at trial. Althoug

OPINION BROWN, Judge. Joseph A. Davis appeals the trial court’s denial of his Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative, on Grounds of Forum Non Conve-niens (the “Motion to Dismiss”), in favor of Herbert and Bui Simon (collectively, “the Simons”). Davis raises four issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the court erred in denying his Motion to Dismiss. We reve

USCA11 Case: 18-14671 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 10/30/2024 Page: 1 of 170 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 18-14671 ____________________ JIMMY DAVIS, JR.,

FIFTH DIVISION RICKMAN, C. J., MCFADDEN, P. J., and SENIOR APPELLATE JUDGE PHIPPS NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules DEADLINES ARE NO LONGER TOLLED IN THIS COURT. ALL

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE EASTERN SECTI ON FILED October 2, 1996 ADA BELL BROW a nd BEVERLY N ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9605- 00174 Cecil Crowson, Jr. J . EVERETT, MARI ON EVERETT ) Appellate C ourt Clerk

Upon consideration of the joint petition filed on the 5th of December 2017 in this matter for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 prior to a determination by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of April 2019."Newby, and Ervin, J. recused

186 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 1999) J.B., a child, by FREDERIC M. HART, his next friend; Y.A., D.A., E.A., F.A., V.C., and C.C., by ELLA JOAN FENOGLIO, their next friend; R.E., C.E., J.E., and E.E., children, by BARBARA E. BERGMAN, their next friend; J.S., a child, by PETER H. JOHNSTONE, his next friend; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs - Appellants,v.J. ALEX VALDEZ, Secretary of the New Mexico Department of

TRAMOND BOURGEOIS * NO. 2020-CA-0170 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL SELECT OILFIELD * SERVICES, LLC AND FAB- FOURTH CIRCUIT CON, INC. * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WIT

523 F.Supp. 1121 (1981) Roland E. DAVIS v. EDGEMERE FINANCE COMPANY. Civ. No. K-81-5. United States District Court, D. Maryland. September 30, 1981. *1122 Otto Major, Aberdeen, Md., for plaintiff. Virginia Deardorff and Herbert H. Miller, Towson, Md., for defendant. FRANK A. KAUFMAN, Chief Judge. In this case

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. A jury found the defendants — Alex Beverly, Betty McNulty, George Brown, and Diane Griffin — guilty of various drug trafficking and/or conspiracy offenses. The defendants appeal their convictions on a *340 multitude of grounds. For the following reasons, we affirm.

TYSON, Judge. *648 *175 Defendants appeal from an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and entry of judgment for liability and permanent injunction in favor of Plaintiff

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2020 WY 155 OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2020 December 18, 2020 RICK MILLER, appointed Wrongful Death Representative for the Estate of Julia Faye Miller, deceased, Petitioner, v. S-20-0076 LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC., a

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 2022-NCSC-22 No. 436PA13-4 Filed 11 March 2022 I. BEVERLY LAKE, JOHN B. LEWIS, JR., EVERETTE M. LATTA, PORTER L. MCATEER, ELIZABETH S. MCATEER, ROBERT C. HANES, BLAIR J. CARPENTER, MARILYN L. FUTRELLE, FRANKLIN E. DAVIS, ESTATE OF JAMES D. WILSON, ESTATE OF BENJAMIN E. FOUNTAIN, JR., FAYE IRIS Y. FISHER, STEVE FRED BLANTON, HERBERT W. COOPER

62 F.Supp.2d 544 (1998) BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA et al., Plaintiffs, v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant. Sarah J. Clark and Ronald S. Schwartzman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc., Defendant. David Watkins and Mary Gallardo, Plaintiffs, v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc., Defendant.

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, dissenting: In 1998, the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida held a trial—Phase I of the Engle class action—to determine whether the largest domestic tobacco companies (the- “Engle defendants”) engaged *1192in conduct proscribed by Florida tort law.1

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Having received the Supreme Court’s mandate in this case, we VACATE and REMAND the judgment of the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corporation, et al., 527 U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 2

DILLON, Judge. The State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees, el al., (the “Defendants”) appeal from the denial of their motion to dismiss pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(1), (2), and (6) in favor of I. Beverly Lake, et al., (the “Plaintiffs”). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part, and dismiss in part.

69 F.3d 549 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order. W.