Cases

488 F.3d 721 Donald H. MACDERMID, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Nina Kay MacDermid, Plaintif-Appellant,v.DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES d/b/a Discover Charge Card, Defendant-Appellee. No. 06-5792. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued: April 20, 2007. Decided and Filed: May 29, 2007.

OPINION BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Donald MacDermid appeals from the magistrate judge’s dismissal of his claims on the pleadings and at summary judgment. See MacDermid, v. Discover Fin. Servs., No. 1:03-0111, 2006 WL 1454743 (M.D.Tenn. May 12, 2006). Mr. MacDer-mid alleges that his wife, who suffered from a severe form of bi

Opinion SHELDON, J. The plaintiff, MacDermid, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing three counts 1 of its complaint against the defendants, Cook-son Group, PLC, Cookson Electronics, Inc., and Enthone, Inc., on the basis of the prior pending action doctrine.

03/07/2019 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 10, 2019 Session MARK ROSS ET AL. v. ORION FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Williamson County No. 39132 Joseph Woodruff, Judge ___________________________________

[Cite as Capital One, N.A. v. Outland, 2025-Ohio-2229.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA CAPITAL ONE, N.A., : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 114668 v. : CHRISTOPHER M. OUTLAND,

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

Langrock, Sperry & Wool, LLP v. Felis, 149-2-13 Cncv (Toor, J., Mar. 9, 2015). [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.] VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CHITTENDEN UNIT CIVIL DIVISION

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

KELLER, J. This appeal, and a related appeal, Parnoff v. Aquarion Water Co. of Connecticut , 188 Conn. App. 145 , 204 A.3d 712

DUR-A-FLEX, INC. v. SAMET DY (SC 20821) (SC 20823) Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins, Ecker, Alexander and Elgo, Js. Syllabus Pursuant to statute (§ 35-51 (b) (2) (B) (iii)), ‘‘misappropriation’’ of a trade secret is defined in relevant part as the ‘‘use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who . . . at th

642 F.Supp.2d 1366 (2009) Lori J. ANTHONY, Plaintiff, v. Harry M. ANTHONY; MCM Consulting & Management, LLC; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; Countrywide Bank, FSB; Shellie Robertson; and Tonya Friend, Defendants. No. 08-21520-CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division. July 27, 2009. *1368 William P. Heller

MEMORANDUM OPINION RANDOLPH D. MOSS, United States District Judge Proceeding pro so, Plaintiff Sanjay Aro-ra brings this diversity action against his dentist, the manufacturer of an allegedly defective dental crown, and his dental insurer. 1 Each of the defendants has moved t

ANALISA TORRES, United States District Judge *689Plaintiff, Fire & Police Pension Association of Colorado, brings this action against Defendants,1 thirty-three banks, alleging violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 <

BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Essroc Cement Corporation appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee American Marietta Corporation on its motion to affirm an award in arbitration. Essroc also appeals the district court’s order denying its motion to alter or amend the judgment. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the district court. PRO

McDONALD, J. **496 This case, which comes to us on certification from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; see General Statutes § 51-199b (d) ; requires us to consider the applicability of our continuing course of conduct tolling doctrine to a relationship between an in

(2008) WILLIAM GRAY, PEGGY GRAY, GREGORY HOUSTON, and PATRICIA NICELY, Plaintiffs, v. FIRST CENTURY BANK, Defendant. Nos. 3:04-CV-591, 3:05-CV-175 United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Knoxville. February 29, 2008. MEMORANDUM OPINION THOMAS A. VARLAN, District Judge. This civil action is before the Court on Defendant First Century

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correct