Cases

OPINION Sweet, D.J. Plaintiffs The Netherlands Insurance Company (“Netherlands”) and Arthur Lange, Inc. (“Lange”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) have moved pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for partial summary judgment declaring that the defendant United Specialty Insurance Company (“United” or the “Defendant”) owes Lange a duty to defend and indemnify in the action Donizete J

CRAIN, J. 12An insurer appeals a summary judgment finding coverage for the plaintiffs’ claims under an excess general liability policy. Finding that coverage is unambiguously excluded under the policy, we reverse and render judgment in favor of the insurer. *1201FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Joshua Petrozziello is a profession

ROSE, District Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Linda Williamson (“Williamson”) filed this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeking interest on benefits she received under an Accidental Death and Dismemberment (“ADD”) insurance policy issued by Defendant-Appellee Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (“Hartford”). The parties filed cross-motions

Opinion PREMO, Acting P. J. Petitioner Sharon Elizabeth Zullo sued her employer, real party in interest Inland Valley Publishing Co. (Inland), for wrongful termination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12920 et seq.; FEHA). The superior court granted Inland’s petition to compel arbitration and stayed the civil proceedings. Petitioner challenged that ruling by way of a

PROST, Chief Judge. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) appeal from a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in favor of Apple Inc. (“Apple”). A jury found that Samsung infringed Apple’s design and utility patents and d

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: Suppose you were the EPA Administrator. You have to decide whether to go forward with a proposed air quality regulation. Your only statutory direction is to decide whether it is “appropriate” to go forward with the regulation. Before making that decision, what information would you want to know? You would cer

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

942 F.Supp. 542 (1996) NORTH FLORIDA EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and Carolyn Ford, etc., Plaintiffs, v. William A. WOODHAM, etc., et al., Defendants. No. 4:96CV81-MMP. United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division. May 20, 1996. *543 Larry K. White, Larry K. White, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, and Jack L. McL