Cases

655 F.Supp.2d 1270 (2009) SOUTHEAST LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, On behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BAYER CORPORATION, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceutical, Inc., Bayer Healthcare, LLC, Bayer Healthcare, A.G., Defendants. This Order relates to Case No. 08-80873. Case No. 08-1928-MD. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. July 30, 2009

*299LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J. ¶ 1. The defendants, Bayer AG, et al. (collectively "Bayer"), seek review of a published court of appeals' decision1 reversing a circuit court order that dismissed all claims brought under Wisconsin's Antitrust Act, Chapter 133 of the Wisconsin Statutes, by Barbara Meyers, Lynn Stucker, Loyal Berg, and Eugene Browni

MEMORANDUM * The Britton Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for relief from the judgment of dismissal entered two years earlier for failure to comply with case management orders in this multidistrict litigation. The Britton Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(6) because they did not

MEMORANDUM * The Britton Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for relief from the judgment of dismissal entered two years earlier for failure to comply with case management orders in this multidistrict litigation. The Britton Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(6) because they did not

718 N.W.2d 251 (2006) 2006 WI App 102 Barbara A. MEYERS, Lynn Stucker, Loyal Berg and Eugene Browning, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BAYER AG, Bayer Corporation, Barr Laboratories, Inc., Rugby Group, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Hoeschst Marion Roussel, Inc., Defendants-Respondents.[†] No. 2003AP2840.

143 F.Supp.2d 1044 (2001) Barbara A. MEYERS, Plaintiff, v. BAYER AG, Bayer Corporation, Barr Laboratories, Rugby Group, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. Defendants. No. 00-C-1582. United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. May 18, 2001. *1045 John C. Cabaniss, Law Office of John C. Cabaniss,

643 F.3d 994 (2011) Cathy M. WALTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAYER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 10-3462. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued March 31, 2011. Decided May 23, 2011. *996 Thomas G. Maag (argued), Attorney, Maag Law Firm, LLC, Wood River, IL, for Plaintiff-Appella

2020 IL 125020 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (Docket Nos. 125020, 125021) CHRISTY RIOS et al., Appellees, v. BAYER CORPORATION et al., Appellants.—NICHOLE HAMBY et al., Appellees, v. BAYER CORPORATION et al., Appe

RILEY, Chief Judge. Melinda Torres filed an action against Bayer Corporation (Bayer) in Texas state court. Bayer removed the action to federal court. Three years later, Torres died. Torres’s two daughters, Nicole Hampton and Stephanie O’Neal (collectively, appellants), moved to substitute for them mother as plaintiffs in this case. The district court denied the motion. Hampton and O’Neal appeal the district court’s denial, a

Bayer Cropscience LP v. Chemtura Corp., 2012 NCBC 40. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF DURHAM 12 CVS 3057 BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) OPINION

ORDER HERNDON, Chief Judge. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on the motion for remand brought by Plaintiff, Cathy M. Walton (09-cv-10217 Doc. 11). Plaintiff asserts claims against Bayer Corporation, Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “the Bayer Defendants”) \ and Niemann Foods, Inc.1

ORDER HERNDON, Chief Judge: INTRODUCTION This case was originally filed in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, and was removed from state court to this Court by Defendants, Bayer Corporation, Bayer Healthcare LLC, and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly known as Berlex Laboratories, Inc. and Berlex, Inc.), on its own

241 S.W.3d 145 (2007) Saskia MADISON, As Next Friend of M.M., A Minor, Appellant, v. Warren Reid WILLIAMSON and Jane Smith, Appellees. No. 01-05-00678-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.). September 27, 2007. Rehearing Overruled November 16, 2007. *149 Kristin Diane Wilkinson, The Wilkinson Law Firm

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 13-2091, -2133, -2136, -2162, -2202 KENT EUBANK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and LEONARD E. SALTZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PELLA CORPORATION and PELLA WINDOWS AND

POSNER, Circuit Judge. The class action is an ingenious procedural innovation that enables persons who have suffered a wrongful injury, but are too numerous for joinder of their claims alleging the same wrong committed by the same defendant or defendants to be feasible, to obtain relief as a group, a class as it is called. The device is especially important when each claim is too

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WALD. WALD, Circuit Judge: District of Columbia residents Clyde C. Freeman and Nancy F. Freeman brought suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to prohibit the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC” or “Corporation”), as receiver for Madison National Bank (“Madison”), from foreclosing on their

Opinion Issued September 27, 2007 Opinion Issued September 27, 2007 <

NUMBER 13-12-00538-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE EAST RIO HONDO WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela Memorandum Opinion by

WILLIAM G. CALLOW, J. This is a review of a published decision of the court of appeals, State v. American TV, 140 Wis. 2d 353, 410 N.W.2d 596 (Ct. App. 1987). That decision reversed an order of the circuit court for Dane county, Judge P. Charles Jones, granting a motion to dismiss the state’s complaint for failure to state a claim in this forfeiture action. We reverse the decision of the court of appeals because the stat

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge SCHALL, in which Chief Judge MAYER and Circuit Judges PLAGER, LOURIE, CLEVENGER, BRYSON, GAJARSA, and DYK join; in which Circuit Judges MICHEL, RADER, and LINN join with respect to PARTS III-A, III-B, and III — D; and in which Circuit Judge MICHEL joins with respect to PART III-E. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge PLAGER. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge