Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES R. SPENCER, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs (ECF No. 5) and a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants (ECF No. 30). Plaintiffs move the Court for Summary Judgment alleging that a regulation promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), which extends eligibility for premium assistance subsidies

On motion of F. Aaron Negangard, Chief Deputy Attorney General of the State of Indiana, and Cathleen M. Shrader, President of the State Board of Law Examiners, both members of the Bar of this Court, each applicant named in Exhibit A is by Order of this Court now duly sworn and admitted to practice as an attorney at law, and their respective names are ordered entered upon the Roll of Attorneys of this Court in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Cou

Halpern, J. The question upon this appeal is whether the declarations of the decedent, admitted under section 118 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, were corroborated by “ circumstances or other evidence ” as required by that section. Decedent was an arbitrageur, in the employ of the appellant stock brokerage company in New York City. His work required him to communicate by telephone and teletypewriter with stock exchan

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1057 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ex rel. KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, II, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Virginia, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, in her official capacity, Defendant – Appellant. −−−−−−−−−

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ex rel.  KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, II, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Virginia, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, in her official capacity, Defendant-Appellant. AMERICA’S HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS; CHAMBER OF

305 Ga. 179 FINAL COPY S18A1204. ELLIOTT v. THE STATE. PETERSON, Justice. The State is prosecuting Andrea Elliott for driving under the influence of alcohol. When Elliott was arrested, she refused to submit to a breath test. Georgia statutes allow the State to use her refusal against her in her criminal trial, and the State has sought to do precisely that. The United States Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitutio

Peterson, Justice. *267**179The State is prosecuting Andrea Elliott for driving under the influence of alcohol. When Elliott was arrested, she refused to submit to a breath test. Georgia statutes allow the State to use her refusal against her in her crim

685 F.Supp.2d 186 (2010) In re PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY AVERAGE WHOLESALE PRICE LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: The City of New York, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 01-12257-PBS. MDL No. 1456. Subcategory Case No. 03-10643-PBS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. February 9, 2010.

509 F.Supp.2d 666 (2007) Diana L. VISTEIN, Plaintiff, v. The AMERICAN REGISTRY OF RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGISTS, Defendant. No. 05 CV 2441. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. September 13, 2007. *667 *668 *669

952 F.2d 1230 60 USLW 2423, 26 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 443,Bankr. L. Rep. P 74,387 In re KAISER STEEL CORPORATION, Debtor.KAISER STEEL CORPORATION; Kaiser Steel Resources, Inc.,formerly known as Kaiser Steel Corporation,Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.PEARL BREWING COMPANY; Falstaff Brewing Company;Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.; Josephthal & Co., Josephthal & Co.Incorporated; the Hillman

294 B.R. 449 (2003) John S. PEREIRA, as Trustee of Trace International Holdings, Inc. and Trace Foam Sub, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Marshall S. COGAN, Saul S. Sherman, Andrea Farace, Frederick Marcus, Robert H. Nelson, Philip Smith, Karl Winters, Tambra King, Defendants. No. 00 CIV. 619(RWS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. May 8, 2003.

STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. The question presented in this appeal is whether consideration paid to shareholders for their stock in connection with a leveraged buy out is exempt from the avoiding powers of a trustee under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, as “settlement payments” made “by or to a ... stockbroker, financial institution, or securities clearing agency.” 11 U.S.C. § 546(e). In its order granting defe

Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge MOTZ wrote the opinion, in which Judge DAVIS and Judge WYNN joined. DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge: The Commonwealth of Virginia (“Virginia”) brings this action against Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“the Secretary”). Virginia challenges one provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as an u

DOGGETT, Justice, dissenting. So many words — so little justice! What does it all mean to the ordinary Texan — the lofty prose, the footnotes and citations, the multiple opinions, the charges and coun-*538tercharges? It means that the New Year brings an immense new wrong. For the school children, there is delay — perhaps infinite delay — in achieving eq

The following opinion was filed June 29, 1936: Wickhem, J. The facts in this case are not in dispute, and the questions presented are two: (1) Upon the facts presented, was there a labor dispute as defined in sub. (3) of sec. 103.62, Stats., so as to bring the activities of defendants within the protection of the Wisconsin labor code and render lawful picketing of plaintiff’s store by defendants. (2) If so cons

AMENDED MEMORANDUM *195AND ORDER1 SARIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION New York City and forty-two New York counties have brought suit against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and subsidiaries alleging Medicaid fraud in violation of the federal Best Prices Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1

384 F.Supp. 895 (1974) In the Matter of PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Debtor. In the Matter of The UNITED NEW JERSEY RAILROAD AND CANAL CO. and Other Secondary Debtors of Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor. In the Matter of LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, Debtor. In the Matter of The CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, Debtor. In the Matter of The LEHIGH AND HUDSON RIVER RAILWAY COMPANY, Debtor. In the Matter of RE

ACCEPTED 03-15-00348-CV 6616789 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS