Cases

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA FORD MOTOR WARRANTY CASES. S279969 Second Appellate District, Division Eight B312261 Los Angeles County Superior Court JCCP No. 4856 July 3, 2025 Justice Corrigan authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans concurred.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAMON RODRIGUEZ VAZQUEZ, No. 25-6842 on behalf of himself as an individual D.C. No. and on behalf of others similarly 3:25-cv-05240- situated, TMC Plaintiff - Appellee, OPINION v. DREW BOSTOCK, Seattl

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Ford, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4539.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or

Matter of Rodriguez v American Bridge Co. (2023 NY Slip Op 00909) Matter of Rodriguez v American Bridge Co. 2023 NY Slip Op 00909 Decided on February 16, 2023 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bu

754 F.Supp.2d 372 (2010) Abdul-Giyath O. MAYALE-EKE, Plaintiff v. MERRILL LYNCH, et al., Defendants. C.A. No. 10-29 S. United States District Court, D. Rhode Island. October 26, 2010. *373 Chip Muller, Chip Muller, Esq., Providence, RI, for Plaintiff. Caroline Forrest Turcotte, Barbara V.G. Parker, Edwards Angell Palmer &a;

391 F.3d 36 Reynaldo RODRÍGUEZ-RODRÍGUEZ, Zenaida Vega-Santiago and their conjugal partnership; Radamés Santiago-López and Angel O. Vélez-Pacheco, Plaintiffs, Appellees,v.Miguel G. ORTIZ-VÉLEZ and Katia Medina-Pedraza, in their personal capacities, Defendants, Appellants.Sabana Grande Municipality; Luis A. Báez, Sabana Grande Commissioner; Osvaldo Ocasio-Rodríguez; Persons X, Y, Z; JAnet Lnu, Defe

OPINION AND ORDER MELINDA HARMON, District Judge. Pending before the Court in the above referenced cause, seeking overtime compensation for “extra” work that Plaintiffs Harold Ford (“Ford”) and Joffery Reid, Jr. (“Reid”) performed, allegedly willfully denied in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201(a)(1) et seq., is Defendant the Houston Independent School

578 F.3d 33 (2009) Carlos CALDERÓN-GARNIER, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Hon. Anabelle RODRÍGUEZ, in her personal capacity as former Secretary of the Puerto Rico Department of Justice; Hon. Roberto Sánchez-Ramos, In his personal and official capacity as acting Secretary of Justice; Pedro Goyco-Amador, in his personal and official capacity of Prosecutor General of the Department of Justice; Cruz Esteves de González, in her personal and official capaci

Ripps, J. The defendant-landowner appeals pursuant to Dist./Mun. Cts. R.A.D.A., Rule 8C(1) whether the evidence was sufficient for the judge to find him negligent for not having a fence atop a retaining wall from which the five-year-old plaintiff fell; (2) whether the judge failed to consider the plaintiffs comparative negligence; and (3) whether the judgment was excessive. The defendant is the trustee of CS

480 F.3d 62 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Osvaldo CARABALLO-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant, Appellant. No. 03-1795. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Heard December 8, 2006. Decided March 21, 2007. Michael R. Hasse, by appointment of the court, for appellant.

995 F.Supp. 190 (1998) Susan ROSENBERG, Plaintiff, v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC. and John Wyllys, Defendants. No. Civ.A. 96-12267-NG. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. January 26, 1998. Steven T. Sager, Marc Redlich, Law Offices of Marc Redlich, Boston, MA, Richard P. Goodkin, Framingham, MA, for Susan M. Rosenberg. Barry Y.

LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Gabriel Eduardo Abreu-Guzmán and his mother, Rosa Leonor Guzmán-Mieses, appeal from the entry of summary judgment on their claims against several federal law enforcement agents who arrested Abreu. Abreu was. detained pre-trial for several months. The arrest was largely based on information from an informant, who had identified Abreu as “Junior,” a participa

2 So.3d 1027 (2009) COOPER TIRE AND RUBBER CO., a foreign corporation, Petitioner, v. Sandra RODRIGUEZ, Respondent. No. 3D08-816. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. January 14, 2009. Rehearing Denied March 11, 2009. *1028 Holland & Knight and Rodolfo Sorondo, Jr. and Rebecca M. Plasencia; Ka

WATERMAN, Justice. This appeal from civil forfeiture proceedings presents several issues: (1) whether invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination excuses compliance with statutory pleading requirements for establishing ownership in cash seized by the State, including identifying the source of the funds; (2) whether the district court must decide motions to suppress

JUSTICE BURKE delivered the opinion of the court: ■ Upon reconsideration of its order denying defendant Ford Motor Company’s (defendant) motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 103(b) (177 111. 2d R. 103), the circuit court granted defendant’s request to certify a question for appeal

922 S.W.2d 572 (1996) Susan Renae MILES, Individually and As next Friend of Willie Searcy and Jermaine Searcy, Minors, and Kenneth Miles, Appellants v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and Douglas Stanley, Jr., d/b/a Doug Stanley Ford, Appellees. No. 06-95-00026-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana. Submitted January 30, 1996. Decided March 13, 1996. Opi

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PATTI B. SARIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“Kaiser”), Aetna, Inc. (“Aetna”), and Guardian Life Insurance Company (“Guardian”), collectively the Coordinated Plaintiffs, bring this case against Pfizer, Inc. and Warner-Lambert Company, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influ

Opinion and Order of June 22, 2012 POSNER, Circuit Judge. In my opinion and order of May 22, following the Daubert hearing held on the 16th, I ruled that proposed testimony by three of the parties’ damages experts (one for Apple and two for Motorola) was inadmissible. Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-8540, 2012 WL 1959560 (N.D.Ill. May 22, 2012); see Fed.R.Evid. 702, 703. This rul

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Virginia M. Kendall, United States District Court Judge Plaintiff Gregory Schuring and his spouse, Mary Schuring, brought this action against Defendant Cottrell, Inc.1 after Gregory sustained injuries in a fall from a Cottrell-manufactured trucking rig during the course of his work as a truck driver hauling cars. Plaintiffs filed state claims in Il

P.S. Fin., LLC v Eureka Woodworks, Inc. (2023 NY Slip Op 00877) P.S. Fin., LLC v Eureka Woodworks, Inc. 2023 NY Slip Op 00877 Decided on February 15, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Connolly, J.P.