Cases

SECTION: “G”(4) ORDER NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Margaret Leech’s (“Leech”) “Motion to Remand to State Court.”1 Having considered the motion, the memoranda in support and in opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court will deny the motion. I. Background <

JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *931THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) Defendant Airswift Holdings Limited's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Brief in Support, filed November 8, 2017 (Doc. 7)("Motion"); (ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Ruling Pending Jurisdictional Discovery o

PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge. Radio Station WOW, Inc., has for many years operated a radio broadcasting station day and night at Omaha, Nebraska. In October, 1945, the Star Broadcasting Company filed an application for a license to use the same frequency at its broadcasting station at Pueblo, Colorado, which is 503 miles from Omaha. Sta

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion to Remand to State Court, filed August 15, 2014 (Doc. 20)(“Motion to Remand”). The Court held a hearing on November 18, 2014. The primary issues are: (i) whether Defendant A’mando Gaytan Saucedo is a New Mexico citizen, thus destroying diversity and necessitating remand; (ii) wheth

ORDER AND REASONS NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, District Judge. In this litigation, Plaintiff Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority — East (“Plaintiff’) seeks damages and injunctive relief against ninety-two oil and gas companies whose actions have allegedly caused erosion of coastal lands, leaving south Louisiana increasingly exposed to tropical storms and hurri

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, with whom BEEZER and NOONAN, Circuit Judges join, dissenting: To paraphrase the great Bard of Avon, “[t]he [majority] doth protest too much, methinks.” W. Shakespeare, Hamlet, III, ii. In a noble attempt to vindicate important legal principles, my colleagues have misinterpreted and exaggerated the essential and dispositive facts of this case. More importantly, they have unju

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Criminal Action No. 06-102 (JDB) ANDERSON STRAKER, CHRISTOPHER SEALEY Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This case arises from the abduction and death of a U.S. citizen, Balram Maharaj, in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago ("Trinida

225 P.2d 1040 (1950) 123 Colo. 105 VOGT v. HANSEN. No. 16143. Supreme Court of Colorado, en Banc. July 10, 1950. On Petition for Rehearing December 11, 1950. *1041 Chutkow & Atler, and Nathan Lee Baum, all of Denver, for plaintiff in error. John G. Reid, Percy S. Morris, Denver,

596 F.Supp.2d 80 (2009) UNITED STATES of America v. Anderson STRAKER, Christopher Sealey, Defendants. Criminal Action No. 06-102 (JDB). United States District Court, District of Columbia. February 10, 2009. *82 Steven Roy Kiersh, Washington, DC, for Defendant. *83 Bruce R. Hegyi, Jeanne

*1140 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion to Remand, filed May 6, 2015 (Doc. 20)(“Mo-tion to Remand”); and (ii) Defendant Reliable, LLC’s Motion to Amend Notice of Removal to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexi

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs Motion for Remand, filed July 24, 2013 (Doc. 10)(“Motion to Remand”). The Court held a hearing on November 14, 2013. The primary issues are: (i) whether Defendant Safeway Insurance Company has established that Plaintiff Betty Ullman’s claims exceed the jurisdictional minimum f

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, filed May 28, 2014 (Doc. 12)(“Motion”). The Court held a hearing on August 7, 2014. The primary issue is whether the Court should grant the Motion and remand this case to state court, because it was pending there for “more than 1 year” at the time of removal

The flood of 1931 was an act of God. This court has indicated rather clearly the character of flood which constitutes an act of God and which there is no duty to anticipate, in the case ofLyon v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 45 Mont. 33, 121 P. 886. The supreme court of Illinois laid down the rule that is generally recognized, in People v. Utica Cement Co., 22 Ill. App. 159

GOURLEY, District Judge. This is a suit for a refund of income taxes paid by the estate of Pressly T. Craig during the year 1936, for the period from April 20, 1936 to December 31, 1936, inclusive. The plaintiffs in the case are the three executors of the estate of Pressly T. Craig, deceased, who died a resident of Allegheny County on April 20, 1936. Pressly T. Craig died testate, his last will and testament, dated March 14, 1

This is an original proceeding by information filed in this court on August 12, 1936, by the General Chairman of the Bar Committees of Missouri, and the members of the advisory committee to the General Chairman. The information charges the respondent, a duly licensed and practicing lawyer in this State, with misconduct and seeks his disbarment. Upon the filing of the information the court appointed the Honorable John H. Taylor of the Livingston County Bar, commissioner, to hear the testimony