Cases

ED CARNES, Chief Judge: In the pre-Booker era, we presumed prejudice from a district court’s failure to ask a defendant if he had anything to say before sentence was pronounced, except in *1117 one circumstance. The exception was where the defendant was sentenced at the low end of the applicable

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: This mandamus petition calls on us to correct a significant misapplication of attorney-client privilege law. The underlying lawsuit springs from a disputed corporate merger. Plaintiff-Petitioner Itron acquired a company called SmartSynch. According to Itron, misrepresentations by three of SmartSynch's corporate officers ("Defendants") caused it unknowingly to assume an unwanted $60 million cont

_LlDREW, J. This lawsuit arises out of Michael and Patricia Bellott’s August 1996 purchase of a residence located at 3501 Janice Drive in Ruston, Louisiana. The Bellotts appeal a judgment dismissing, on motion for summary judgment, their claims against Ru-ston Building and Loan Association and its Vice-President, Warren Post, who financed the Bellott’s home purchase. We affirm. FACTS

614 F.Supp.2d 733 (2009) In re INTERNATIONAL MARINE, LLC. Civil Action Nos. 07-6424, 07-6507. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. May 1, 2009. *734 Francis I. Spagnoletti, Michael W. Hogue, Spagnoletti & Associates, Houston, *735 TX, David Winston Ardoin, Walter K. Naquin, Jr., Attorneys

Justice GREEN delivered the Opinion of the Court. Under the learned intermediary doctrine, the manufacturer of a pharmaceutical product satisfies its duty to warn the end user of its product’s potential risks by providing an adequate warning to a “learned intermediary,” who then assumes the duty to pass on the necessary warnings to the end user. See, e.g., Gravis v. Parke-Davis & Co., 502 S.W.2d

534 F.3d 357 (2008) Kenesha L. BARNES, on behalf of the ESTATE OF Sherrie BARNES, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. KOPPERS, INC.; Beazer East, Inc., formerly known as Beazer Materials and Services, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellants. No. 06-60708. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. June 30, 2008. *358

WILLIAMS, J. _JjThe plaintiffs, Samuel R. Guy and Janet M. Guy, appeal a district court judgment denying their motion for summary judgment and granting the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS The plaintiffs are the owners of a 140-acre tract of immovable property located, in DeSoto Parish.1 On March 23,

Opinion issued May 27, 2021 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-19-00336-CV ——————————— DEZZIE BRUMFIELD, JOE ADAMO, JULIA ADAMS, NANCY ALLEN, ANDREW ANDERSON, BEVERLY ANDERSON, ONYEMA ANOZIE, WHITLEY ARRINGTON, SHARON BACON, KOLAWOLE BAKARE, LONNIE C

107 Cal.App.3d 962 (1980) 166 Cal. Rptr. 238 In re ANTHONY J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. JOSEPH J. BOTKA, as Chief Probation Officer, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY J., Defendant and Appellant. Docket No. 46757. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two. July 8, 1980.

OAKES, Circuit Judge: Anthony M. Scotto and Anthony Anastasio, not contesting the sufficiency of the evidence, appeal from judgments of convictions on forty-three counts entered after an eight-week jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles E. Stewart, Judge. The counts included one against Scotto, then president of Local 1814 o

84 Cal.App.3d 907 (1978) 149 Cal. Rptr. 87 In re MICHAEL T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL T., Defendant and Appellant. Docket No. 32089. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two. September 18, 1978. *908 COUNSEL

719 F.Supp.2d 753 (2010) In re the COMPLAINT AND PETITION OF TRITON ASSET LEASING GmbH, Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., and Transocean Deepwater Inc., as Owner, Managing Owners, Owners Pro Hac Vice, and/or Operators of Modu Deepwater Horizon, in a cause for exoneration from or limitation of liability. Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-1721. United States District Court, S.D. Texas,

126 Cal.App.3d 308 (1981) 178 Cal. Rptr. 818 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARK ANTHONY JONES, Defendant and Appellant. Docket No. 13500. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One. November 23, 1981. *311 COUNSEL Quin Denvir, State Public Defender, under appointment by

598 F.3d 208 (2010) Ned COMER; Brenda Comer; Eric Haygood, husband of Brenda Haygood; Brenda Haygood; Larry Hunter, husband of Sandra L. Hunter; Sandra L. Hunter; Mitchell Kisielweski, husband of Johanna Kisielweski; Johanna Kisielweski; Elliott Roumain, husband of Rosemary Roumain; Rosemary Roumain; Judy Olson; David Lain, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MURPHY OIL USA; Universal Oil Products (UOP); Shell Oil Company; Exxonmobil Corp.; AES Corp.; Alle

145 Cal.App.3d 540 (1983) 193 Cal. Rptr. 483 In re WILLIAM ARCHIE FAIN on Habeas Corpus. Docket No. AO22049. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two. July 28, 1983. *542 COUNSEL Robert Y. Bell for Petitioner. Quin Denvir, State Public Defender, Michael R. Snedeker, Deputy State P

465 U.S. 37 (1984) PULLEY, WARDEN v. HARRIS No. 82-1095. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 7, 1983 Decided January 23, 1984 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT *38 Michael D. Wellington, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for petitioner.

39 Cal.3d 667 (1985) 704 P.2d 719 217 Cal. Rptr. 652 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JEREMIAH TREVINO, Defendant and Appellant; LEONARD L. RIVAS, Defendant and Respondent. Docket No. Crim. 24027. Supreme Court of California. August 29, 1985. *675 COUNSEL John K. Van d

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SIDNEY A. FITZWATER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiffs in these consolidated actions bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Dallas County, Texas (“Dallas County”), alleging that it violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by refusing to grant them immediate release on bond and by detaining them based on immigration holds after they were otherwise el

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 14-1952 PEDRO LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of a class of individuals similarly situated; ABEL CANO, individually and on behalf of a class of individuals similarly situated; KEVIN SLEDGE, individually and on behalf of a class of individuals similarly situated; CHARLES DE JESÚS, individually and on behalf of a class of individuals similarly situated; RICHARD BROOKS, individual

525 F.3d 116 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Anthony BUCCI and David A. Jordan, Defendants, Appellants. Nos. 06-2746, 07-1087. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Heard March 4, 2008. Decided May 13, 2008. *120 Robert L. Sheketoff and Anthony Bucci, pro se, for appellant Anthony Bucci.