Cases

ACCEPTED 15-25-00012-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 3:13 PM No. 15-25-00012-CV

ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV

Filed 6/11/25 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER GUY JASSO, Defendant and Appellant. S179454 Riverside County Superior Court INF047207 ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER GUY JASSO, Defendant and Appellant. S179454 Riverside County Superior Court INF047207 April 3, 2025 Justice Kruger authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justi

SPATT, District Judge. This is an action brought under Section Two of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, *20552 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq ("VRA"). The plaintiffs, Hispanic residents of the Town of Islip (the "Town" or "Islip

Filed 3/20/18 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F071348 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 1423449) v. TURLOCK HERNAN DIAZ et al., OPINIO

Filed 4/10/18 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F071348 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 1423449) v. TURLOCK HERNAN DIAZ et al.,

6 Cal.3d 141 (1971) 490 P.2d 1142 98 Cal. Rptr. 454 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MANUEL A. ORTIZ et al., Defendants and Appellants. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BENJAMIN BAIM et al., Defendants and Appellants. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHULEN MOSKOWITZ et al., Defendants and Appellants. (Consolidated Cases.)

342 F.3d 948 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Raymond SHRYOCK, a/k/a Huero Shy, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Jesse Moreno, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Ruben Hernandez, a/k/a Tupi, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Alex Aguirre, aka, Pee Wee, aka Howard, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED

ORDER APPROVING IN PART AND DISAPPROVING IN PART CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT BIERY, District Judge. PROLOGUE AND SYNOPSIS The matter before the Court is about the promotion system of the San Antonio Police Department (“SAPD”). It arises out of conflict between and among diverse and strong personalities and groups within the department. Although filed in 1994 by the San Antonio Hispa

343 P.2d 654 (1958) 66 N.M. 64 L.J. CARTWRIGHT et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO, a New Mexico Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 6172. Supreme Court of New Mexico. December 12, 1958. Rehearing Denied May 14, 1959. On Motion for Rehearing June 1, 1959. On Second Pet

255 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2001) LLOYD W. CRAMER; DANIEL E. LIPICH, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,v.CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.GUILLERMO ALFARO, PLAINTIFF,ANDDENNIS R. BLEVINS; RAY R. CASIO; STEVE CUNNINGHAM; RICK DEWOODY; ALEJANDRO GARCIA; DAVID V. GARCIA; RAUL C. GARCIA; JAMES A. GRECO; BRUCE A. HARVEY; JOHN K. HATFIELD; ROBERT W. HATFIELD; LEE A. INGRAM; ZENO KING, JR.; JOHN L. LACROIX; GREGORY A. LANDAVAZO; MELVIN

209 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) LLOYD W. CRAMER; DANIEL E. LIPICH, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.GUILLERMO ALFARO, Plaintiff,andDENNIS R. BLEVINS; RAY R. CASIO; STEVE CUNNINGHAM; RICK DEWOODY; ALEJANDRO GARCIA; DAVID V. GARCIA; RAUL C. GARCIA; JAMES A. GRECO; BRUCE A. HARVEY; JOHN K. HATFIELD; ROBERT W. HATFIELD; LEE A. INGRAM; ZENO KING, JR.; JOHN L. LACROIX; GREGORY A. LANDAVAZO; ME

790 F.Supp.2d 1119 (2011) Kristin M. PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants. NO. C 09-02292 JW. United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division. June 14, 2011. *1120 David Boies, Rosanne C. Baxter, Boies Schiller and Flexner, Armonk, NY, Theodore B. Olson, Amir Cameron Tayran

TROTT, Circuit Judge. In these consolidated appeals, Defendants Appellants Alex Aguirre (“Aguirre”), Juan Arias (“Arias”), Daniel Barela (“Barela”), Ruben Castro (“R. Castro”), David Gallardo (“Gallardo”), Joe Hernandez (“J.Hemandez”), Ruben Hernandez (“R. Hernandez”), Raymond Mendez (“Mendez”), Jesse Moreno (“Moreno”), Raymond Shryock (“Shryock”), and Randy Therrien (“Therrien”), (collectively “Appellants”), appeal from the

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER John T. Copenhaver, Jr., United States District Judge Pending are plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, the joint motions by defendants American Water Works Company, Inc., American Water Works Service Company, Inc., West Virginia-Ameriean Water Company, and Eastman Chemical Company to exclude the expert testimony of Seward G. Gilbert, Harvey Rosen, Ph.D., and David Scott Si

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SIDNEY B. BROOKS, Bankruptcy Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .690 II. Summary.691 A. A Summary of this Opinion.691 B. The Enactment of 11 U.S.C. § 110 in the Reform Act of 1994 .692 C. The 2005 Amendments .693 D. The Unintended Consequences of 11 U.S.C. § 110.694

TSOUCALAS, Judge: Defendants-appellants Nelson Luis Millet, Manuel E. Roman, Richard Morales, Hector Luis Rios, Maria Vidro, Johnny Zapata, Robert Burgos, Francisco Soto (“F.Soto”), Alexis Antuna, Luis Noel Cruz, Edgar Rodriguez (“E.Rodriguez”), Edward Calderon and Gilberto Rivera (“G.Rivera”), appeal from judgments entered, following jury trials or plea agreements, in the United States District Court for the District of Con

KING, Circuit Judge: Defendant-appellant Juan Garcia Abrego appeals his conviction and sentence for ten counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), five counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(A)(i); three counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A), one count of co

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the Court’s opinion in this very sensitive application of the federal Labor Management Relations Act (“Act”) to a freely negotiated collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between Consolidated Freightways (“Consolidated”) and its union-member employees. No doubt, the majority is correct in the formulation of the rule we shoul