Cases

Purnell v. Shoreway Acres Resort CV-96-251-SD 03/10/97 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Anne Purnell v. Civil No. 96-251-SD Shorewav Acres Resort, Inc.; Terence L. Dineen O R D E R In this diversity action, plaintiff Anne Purnell seeks relief against defendants Shoreway Acres Resort, Inc. (Shoreway) and its owner, Terence Dineen,

585 F.2d 625 18 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 261, 18 Empl. Prac.Dec. P 8657Lucy SLEDGE et al., Individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated, Appellees,Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, Intervenor-Appellee,v.J. P. STEVENS & CO., INC., Appellants.Lucy SLEDGE, Thomas Hawkins, Herman Jones, Mable MoodyMiles, Clara Purnell, Patricia Purnell, LukePhipps and Marie Robinson, Appellants,and

637 F.Supp.2d 1329 (2009) CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD and the Government of Canada, Plaintiffs, and Government of Alberta, Government of Ontario, and Government of Saskatchewan, Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. UNITED STATES and the United States Department of Commerce, Defendants. Slip Op. 09-92. Court No. 07-00058. United States Court of International Trade. September 1, 2009.

83 F.Supp.2d 52 (1999) UNITED STATES of America, v. Archibald R. SCHAFFER III, Defendant. No. CRIM. A. 96-0314 (JR). United States District Court, District of Columbia. December 3, 1999. *53 Donald C. Smaltz, Joseph P. Guichet, Wil Frentzen, Office of Independent Counsel, Alexandria, VA, for United States. William H. Jeffr

Filed: September 5, 2013 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1791 (1:10-cv-03183-CCB) STATE OF MARYLAND, Office of the Attorney General, Plaintiff - Appellee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor/Plaintiff – Appellee, v. UNIVERSAL ELECTIONS, INCORPORATED; JULIUS HENSON,

Filed: August 28, 2013 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1791 (1:10-cv-03183-CCB) STATE OF MARYLAND, Office of the Attorney General, Plaintiff - Appellee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor/Plaintiff – Appellee, v. UNIVERSAL ELECTIONS, INC

154 F.3d 226 1998-2 Trade Cases P 72,256,13 Communications Reg. (P&F) 458SBC COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; Southwestern Bell TelephoneCompany; Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc.;Southwestern Bell Communications Services-Texas, Inc.;Southwestern Bell Internet Services, Inc.; Pacific Bell;Pacific Bell Communications; Nevada Bell, Plaintiffs-Appellees,US West Communications, Inc.; Bell Atlantic Corporation,

ACCEPTED 06-15-00013-CV SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 9/16/2015 4:49:55 PM

MARCUS, Circuit Judge: In this sign ordinance case, the City of Sunrise (the “City”) appeals the district *1324 court’s grant of final summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Coral Springs Street Systems, Inc. (“Coral Springs”). Coral Springs petitioned for equitable relief in the United Stat

943 F.Supp. 685 (1996) Boyd L. RICHIE, et al, Plaintiffs, v. The AMERICAN COUNCIL ON GIFT ANNUITIES, et al, Defendants. Civil Action No. 7:94-CV-128-X. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Wichita Falls Division. September 30, 1996. *686 Lonny D. Morrison, Morrison & Shelton, Wichita Falls, TX, Ronald D Wells, Milner Lob

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

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: This appeal challenges the constitutionality of a significant part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The FCC, the United States, and numerous interested intervenors appeal the district court’s determination that §§ 271-75 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 271-75, are an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Finding the provisions at issue to be nonpun-itive in character, we hold that they are not, in

FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge: An across-the-board assault upon the employment practices of the J. P. Stevens & Company, Inc., was initiated on October 2, 1970, when thirteen black residents of North Carolina filed this action seeking individual and class relief against the company.1 The individual plaintiffs, past and present employees of J. P. Stevens’ Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, operatio

ACCEPTED 03-15-00085-CV 5176028 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

ACCEPTED 03-14-00510-CV 4243321 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS