Cases

[Cite as Phillips v. Regina Health Ctr., 2024-Ohio-6012.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) ASHLEY PHILLIPS C.A. No. 30883 Appellant v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT

993 So.2d 142 (2008) Danny DEL PILAR, Appellant, v. DHL GLOBAL CUSTOMER SOLUTIONS (USA), INC., a foreign profit corporation, Appellee. No. 1D07-5140. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. October 24, 2008. *144 Brian J. Lee and Carl Scott Schuler of Law Offices of Carl Scott Schuler, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appella

OPINION WENDY BEETLESTONE, District Judge Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 82-1) of the order granting Defendants’ Motion in Limine (ECF No. 74) to preclude the lay testimony of Wage and Hour Investigator (“WHI”).. Jennifer Azeles. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs motion will be granted. I. BACKGROUND This case concer

507 S.E.2d 170 (1998) 234 Ga. App. 623 DUNN v. The STATE. No. A98A1545. Court of Appeals of Georgia. September 15, 1998. Reconsideration Denied October 5, 1998. Certiorari Denied February 5, 1999. *171 Phillip Dunn, pro se. Ralph T. Bowden, Jr., Solicitor, W. Cliff

708 F.Supp.2d 450 (2010) PRONOVA BIOPHARMA NORGE AS, Plaintiffs, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendants. Pronova BioPharma Norge AS, Plaintiffs, v. Apotex Corp. and, Apotex Inc., Defendants. Pronova BioPharma Norge AS, Plaintiffs, v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. and, Par Pharmaceutical Companies Inc., Defendants. Civil Action Nos. 09-286-SLR-MPT, 09-304-SLR-MPT, 09-305-SLR-MPT.

315 F.Supp.2d 136 (2004) Karen LAVALLEY, Plaintiff, v. QUEBECOR WORLD BOOK SERVICES LLC Defendant. No. CIV.A. 03-10139-WGY. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. April 30, 2004. *137 *138 David R Ardito, Law Office of David R. Ardito, Attleboro, MA, for Karen LaValley, Plaintiff.

CHIN, Circuit Judge: In this case, C.L., a child with a disability, was denied a free appropriate public education (a “FAPE”) by the Scarsdale Union Free School District (the “District”). His parents, plaintiffs-appellants C.L. and G.W., placed him in a specialized private school designed to educate children with learning disabilities and sued the District for tuition reimburseme

MEMORANDUM OPINION STARK, U.S. District Judge: Presently before the Court are the Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for Obviousness (D.I.330) and Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for Inadequate Written Description and Failure to Enable the Full Scope of the Claims (D.I.303), both filed by Defendants Apotex Corp., Apotex, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutica

OPINION Sue L. Robinson, Senior District Judge I. INTRODUCTION This consolidated case arises out of the filing of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDAs”) by defendants Sigmap-harm Laboratories, LLC (“Sigmapharm”); Breckenridge : Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Breckenridge”); Hikma. Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, PLC, and West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corporation (collectively, “Hi

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘o

223 B.R. 830 (1998) In re Keith Dewayne BARBER, Debtor. Bankruptcy No. 97-74133. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. July 28, 1998. *831 Pilar A. Cano, Clark & Washington P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Debtor. ORDER MARGARET H. MURPHY, Bankruptcy Judge. This case is before the court

OPINION AND ORDER SALVADOR E. CASELLAS, Senior District Judge. Before the Court are the defendants’ renewed motions to dismiss based on a forum-selection clause, Dockets ##46 & 47, and the plaintiffs opposition thereto. Docket #49. Also pending is the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing, for want of service of process, his claims against codefendant José Raúl Rodríguez. Docke

People v McGuire (2025 NY Slip Op 07421) People v McGuire 2025 NY Slip Op 07421 Decided on December 31, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrecte

CURTIN, District Judge. The Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma has filed a motion pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to intervene as of right in this action, or in the alternative for joinder as a necessary party pursuant to Rule 19(a) (Item 215). The Seneca Nation of Indians as party plaintiff, the United States of America as plaintiff-intervenor (referred to collectively herein as “plaintiffs”),

People v Cedillo (2025 NY Slip Op 05816) People v Cedillo 2025 NY Slip Op 05816 Decided on October 22, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is unco

Opinion MALLANO, Acting P. J. In 2001, plaintiff was demoted from his position of employment with the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Before learning of the demotion, plaintiff commenced a disability leave for reasons unrelated to his employment. Due to his illness, plaintiff has remained unavailable for work ever since. In 2003, the Personnel Commission of the LAUSD (Commissio

939 P.2d 1172 (1997) 148 Or. App. 404 STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Michael Edward DISHMAN III, Appellant. 951238830; CA A92529. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Submitted on Record and Briefs April 16, 1997. Decided June 11, 1997. Raymond Tindell, Portland, filed the brief for appellant. Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Vi

Opinion issued March 4, 2021 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-20-00674-CV ——————————— IN RE EDUARDO DEL PINO, SPRING DEL PINO, ROBERT RUGGLES, GLORIA RUGGLES, ROBERT DAWKINS, DEMETRIA DAWKINS, EDDIE DELANEY, JENNIFER DELANEY, LEROY DELK, CAROLE DELK, MARTI

OPINION STARK, United States District Judge: Plaintiffs — UCB, Inc., UCB BioPharma SPRL, Research Corporation Technologies, Inc., and Harris FRC Corporation (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) — allege that Defendants — Accord Healthcare, Inc., Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Auro-bindo Pharma USA,

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 760 OPINION Insurance Company of North America (INA), a casualty insurer, seeks a writ of prohibition against the superior court to preserve the confidentiality of its attorney-client communications against discovery by GAF Corporation (GAF). INA is a defendant in a superior court action brought