Cases

ORDER MODIFYING CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER, PRELIMINARILY APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND CLASS NOTICE, AND SETTING FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Having reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Modification of Class Certification Order; Preliminary Approval of Settlement; and Establishment of Qualified Set

759 F.Supp. 1089 (1991) Nancy Jeanne CHURCHILL, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES, INC., NATIONAL SERVICE DIVISION, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 87-4024. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. March 22, 1991. As Amended April 16, 1991. *1090 *1091 Phyllis Gelman, N

922 A.2d 36 (2007) Mark BANFIELD, Sarah Beck, Joan Bergquist, Alan Brau, Lucia Dailey, Peter Deutsch, Constance Fewlass, Barbara Glassman, Marijo Highland, Janis Hobbs-Pellechio, Deborah Johnson, Robert Maxwell McCord, Andrew McDowell, James Michaels, J. Whyatt Mondesire, Mary Montresor, Rev. James Moore, Cathy Reed, Regina Schlitz, Alexander Sickert, Daniel Sleator, Susanna Staas, Stephen J. Strahs, Mary Vollero, Jeanne Zang, Petitioners v. Pedr

598 F.3d 1329 (2010) ATK THIOKOL, INC. (now known as ATK Launch Systems Inc.), Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant. No. 2009-5036. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. March 19, 2010. *1330 Thomas A. Lemmer, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, of Denver, CO, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him o

Altman v DiPreta (2022 NY Slip Op 02774) Altman v DiPreta 2022 NY Slip Op 02774 Decided on April 27, 2022 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

OPINION Justice STEVENS. In this appeal, we must determine whether the Commonwealth Court erred in upholding the decision of the Secretary of the Commonwealth to certify certain direct-recording electronic voting systems (DREs) for use in Pennsylvania elections. 1 The Commonwealth Cour

567 F.3d 1340 (2009) McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, and General Dynamics Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. Nos. 2007-5111, 2007-5131. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. June 2, 2009. *1341 Charles J. Cooper, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, of Washington, DC, ar

OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JOINDER WHEELER, Judge. In these spent nuclear fuel cases, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (“ConEd”) and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC (“Entergy”) have claims arising from the Department of Energy’s breach of contract at the Indian Point 2 Nuclear Power Station (“Indian Point 2”) in Buchanan, New York. ConEd sold Indian Point 2 to

OPINION AND ORDER GEORGE W. MILLER, Judge. Plaintiff Michael Kawa filed this suit in June of 2006, alleging, as is relevant here, that the Government breached an implied contract with him, that he was a third-party beneficiary of a contract between the Government and Capital City Pipes, and/or that he was assigned the rights to payment under the Capital City Pipes contract. In its opinion of June 28

Dear Councilmember Batt: Reference is made to your request for an opinion of this office regarding Section 9-310 of the New Orleans City Charter ("Section 9-310"), in light of the impending installation of slot machines and conduction of slot machine gaming at the New Orleans Fair Grounds Race Course ("the Fair Grounds") owned by Churchill Downs, Inc. Pertinently, Section 9-310 provides: "If authorized by law, permits may be issued by the City of New Orleans for t

OPINION AND ORDER WHEELER, Judge. This case involves the damages claims of Plaintiffs Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (“Con Ed”) and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC (“Entergy”) caused by the failure of the Department of Energy (“DOE”) to collect and dispose of spent nuclear fuel. Under the terms of DOE’s June 1983 Standard Contract, DOE was to begin collecting spent nuclear fu

OPINION AND ORDER ON CONSOLIDATED EDISON’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WHEELER, Judge. In this spent nuclear fuel ease, the Court issued its decision on May 17, 2010 awarding damages to Plaintiffs Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (“Con Ed”) and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC (“En-tergy”) for the Department of Energy’s breach of contract in failing to collect and dispose of spent

603 F.Supp.2d 1176 (2009) HABITAT EDUCATION CENTER, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, et al., Defendants. Case No. 08-C-0043. United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. March 19, 2009. *1180 Bradley D. Klein, Howard A. Learner, Kathrine B. Dixon, Chicago, IL, Brady C. Williamson, Godfrey & Kahn SC,

OPINION BY President Judge LEADBETTER.2 Petitioners, twenty-four individual voters,3 move for partial summary judgment in this original jurisdiction matter filed against the Secretary of the Commonwealth (Secretary). For the reasons that follow, we deny the motion.4 In late 2006, Petitioners filed a ten-count

JUSTICE SOLOMON, concurring. I join with the majority's affirmance, but disagree with its reasoning. I agree that Churchill v. State, 378 N.J. Super. 471, 876 A.2d 311 (App. Di

GARY W. LYNCH, P.J. Raymond Spencer Hood (“Defendant”) appeals his convictions for five counts of statutory rape in the first degree, one count of statutory sodomy in the second degree and one count of statutory rape in the second degree. See sections 566.032, 566.064, and 566.034.1 Defendant contends in four points that the trial court erred in admitting (1) “the testimony of Nancy Sutt

GILBERT, P. J. *4In Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 249, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 237

841 F.Supp. 840 (1994) Cathy PAULI and Gregory Pauli, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, FARMINGTON CENTRAL COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT, DISTRICT 265, Larry Hippen, Gary Schulz, Susan Haynes, City of Farmington Police Department, Lon Howarter, and William Cale, Defendants. No. 91-1016. United States District Court, C.D. Illinois. January 12, 1994.

SUPPLEMENTAL RULING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER EGINTON, Senior District Judge. FACTS Boulanger, Hicks, Stein & Churchill (“Bou-langer”) represented Banque Paribas in a separate action against Dana that has since been settled.1 On December 9,1992, Chemical Bank served Boulanger with a subpoena duces tecum for five boxes of documents th

Opinion by Judge Craig, Developers present this exclusionary zoning appeal from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County which affirmed the Schuylkill Township Board of Supervisors’ rejection of the developers’ curative amendment attack upon the zoning ordinance’s prohibition of multiple dwellings. The developers propose to erect 1556 residential units of multi-family dwellings (garden apartments