Cases

USCA11 Case: 20-14629 Date Filed: 06/14/2022 Page: 1 of 27 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-14629 ____________________ A.M. SAMARA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus THOMAS KEITH TAYLOR,

13 S.W.3d 56 (2000) Lawrence R. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. TAYLOR PUBLISHING COMPANY, Appellee. No. 05-99-00184-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. January 4, 2000. *58 Laura Ellen Eardley, John E. Wall, Jr., Law Offices of John E. Wall, Jr., Dallas, for Appellant. Dan Hartsfield, Samara L. Kline, Baker & Botts, L.L.P.

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge: Taylor Publishing Company (“Taylor”) sued Jostens, Inc. (“Jostens”), alleging antitrust violations and related torts. After a jury found in Taylor’s favor on all but one of its claims, the trial court granted judgment as a matter of law for Jostens. Taylor appeals, and we affirm. I Jostens and Taylor

Filed 8/17/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WILL TAYLOR et al., D076869 Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2016-00015444-CU-OE-CTL) FINANCIAL CASUALTY & SURETY, INC., Defendant and

67 So.3d 224 (2010) Tamara D. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. MORRISON HOMES, INC. n/k/a Taylor Morrison Services, Inc., Appellee. No. 2D09-1773. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. August 6, 2010. Rehearing Denied January 14, 2011. Henry T. Sorensen, II, of Law Offices of Henry T. Sorensen, II, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Thomas J. R

OPINION JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice. Bank of America, Fleet Bank d/b/a Fleet Leasing, Bank of America Corporation, and Fleet Boston Financial Corporation d/b/a Fleet Leasing & National Bank (BOA) appeal the judgment of the trial court. They raise three issues on appeal. We affirm. Background This case arises out of a dispute between BOA

992 S.W.2d 40 (1999) John KNOX, Jr. and Universal Surety of America, Appellants, v. Stacy TAYLOR and Standard Managing General Agency, Inc., Appellees. No. 14-96-00993-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). February 11, 1999. Rehearing Overruled April 8, 1999. *45 Cynthia L. Jones, Houston, John P.

507 F.Supp.2d 832 (2007) TAYLOR BUILDING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Eric BENFIELD, Defendant. No. 1:04cv510. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division. June 15, 2007. *833 *834 *835 Charles Gregory Schmidt, Jerome Robert Linneman,

888 So.2d 1 (2004) Lawrence TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF BREVARD COUNTY, Respondent. No. SC01-1924. Supreme Court of Florida. August 19, 2004. Joseph H. Williams of Troutman, Williams, Irvin, Green and Helms, P.A., Winter Park, FL, for Petitioner. Tracy Raffles Gunn of Fowler, White, Boggs and Banker, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Florida Defense Lawyers Ass

131 F.Supp.2d 982 (2001) MEASUREMENT SPECIALITIES, INC. Plaintiff, v. TAYLOR PRECISION PRODUCTS, L.P., Kohl's Corporation, Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., and ABC Corporations (1-10), Defendants. No. 00 C 1478. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. February 5, 2001. *983 Steven C. Florscheim, Sperling &am;

BAR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING OPALA, J. 1 In this disciplinary proceeding against a lawyer, the issues to be decided are: (1) Does the record submitted for our examination provide sufficient evidence for a meaningful de novo consideration of the complaint and of its disposition?1 and (2) Is a thirty-day suspension an appropriate disciplinary sanction for respondent's breach o

Order denying motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice modified by providing that plaintiffs shall pay defendants ten dollars costs within ten days after the entry of the order hereon. As so modified the order is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellants. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.

410 Ill. 469 (1951) 102 N.E.2d 529 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Defendant in Error, v. HAROLD TAYLOR, Plaintiff in Error. No. 32125. Supreme Court of Illinois. Opinion filed November 27, 1951. *470 JOHN B. HARRIS, of Granite City, for plaintiff in error. IVAN A. ELLIOTT, Attorney General, of

327 Mich. 674 (1950) 42 N.W.2d 780 MARRS v. TAYLOR. Docket No. 20, Calendar No. 44,586. Supreme Court of Michigan. Decided May 18, 1950. *675 Jones & Theiss, for plaintiff. Jackson, Fitzgerald, Dalm, Nims, Sage & Wheeler, for defendant. BUTZEL, J. Kathryn Marrs br

614 F.3d 1354 (2010) RING PLUS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CINGULAR WIRELESS CORP., Cingular Wireless II LLC, Cingular Wireless LLC, and AT & T Wireless Services, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. No. 2009-1537. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. August 6, 2010. *1357 Jerry L. Mowery, Jr., Law Offices of Jerry L.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION WILLIAM G. YOUNG, DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION Chanmony Huot, Vladimir Saldana, Champa Pang, Thoeun Kong, Lianna Ku-shi, Denisse Collazo, Sue J. Kim, Soady Ouch, Tooch Van, Carmen Bermudez, Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, Daniel K. Uk, and Fahmina Zaman (“Plaintiffs”), have brought this action against the City Of Lowell, Mass

BRIAN JACK GOREE, Judge. T1 This is a companion case to Case No. 109,279 (cons. w/109,280) and to Case No. 109,614. Appeals 109,279 and 109,280 were consolidated for consideration and decision by order of the Supreme Court. Although Appeals 109,279 and 109,614 arise from the same cireumstances as the present appeal, they contain separate issues and thus were not consolidated, but were made companion cases. We consider these

USCA11 Case: 21-12709 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 08/07/2023 Page: 1 of 18 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-12709 ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERIC

BRIAN JACK GOREE, Judge. 1 1 The Tulsa City Council adopted a resolution to finance a multi-purpose facility in downtown Tulsa now known as ONEOK Field. The Improvement District Act, 11 O.S.2011 § 39-101 et seq. governs the cere-ation of improvement districts and outlines a procedure for paying for them by means of assessments to interested property owners. T 2 In this consolidated appeal, under surviv

DONALDSON, Judge. Roy Davis and Voncile Davis appeal from summary judgments entered by the Franklin Circuit Court ("the trial court") in favor of A.M. Samara in case number CV-15-900107 and in favor of Terek Samara in case number CV-15-900106 on their ejectment claims against the Davises. The two cases involve the same relevant facts and have essentially the same procedural history. The Davises assert that the claims against them ar