Cases

ORDER Carl Davis sued his former employer, Sears, Roebuck and Co., and three of its employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of his race and retaliation for complaining about the discrimination and harassment. The district court granted summary judgment to Sears, pointing out that Davis’s failure to respond to the

FLAUM, Chief Judge. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed suit Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., alleging that *435 Sears, Roebuck & Co. (“Sears”), engaged in unlawful employment discrimination against Judith Ke

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS Sears Roebuck & Co. and FILED Liberty Mutual Insurance July 30, 2020 Company/Helmsman Management, EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK Petitioners Below, Petitioners SUPREME COURT OF APPE

290 A.2d 826 (1972) SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. Winifred M. GOUDIE, Appellee. Winifred M. GOUDIE, Appellant, v. CLIMATE CONDITIONING CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellee. Winifred M. GOUDIE, Appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee. Nos. 5914, 5915 and 5887. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argu

Tammy Roebuck sued CNH America, LLC ("CNH"), in the Marshall Circuit Court seeking damages for the wrongful death of her husband, Chris Roebuck, who was killed in an accident involving a backhoe manufactured by CNH. At the conclusion of a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of CNH; however, on Roebuck's motion, the trial court subsequently ordered a new trial on the ground of juror misconduct. CNH appeals, arguing that the trial court exceeded its discretion in ordering a

97 Wn.2d 260 (1982) 643 P.2d 884 SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, Appellant, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. No. 47821-0. The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. April 22, 1982. Bogle & Gates, John T. Piper, D. Michael Young, and James H. Lowe, for appellant. Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Attorney General, and

142 N.J. Super. 205 (1976) 361 A.2d 68 SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THERESA M. MERLA, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued May 18, 1976. Decided June 7, 1976. *206 Before Judges LYNCH, LARNER and HORN. Mr. Alan M. Kessler argu

Sam RobiNsoN, Associate Justice. The appellee, Sears, Roebuck and Co., sold a garden tractor and four automobile tires to appellant, James L. Sloan. The price of the tractor was $295.58, including sales tax. Apparently a sales ticket was made out for that amount. The four tires came to $111.80; $20.00 was allowed on old tires traded in, leaving $91.80; federal tax of $4.36 was added to that a

LOGAN, Circuit Judge. The United States appeals the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee Logan Bagley, trustee in bankruptcy for Murdock Machine and Engineering Co. of Utah (Murdock). The issues on appeal are whether the district court erred in not deferring to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) fo

208 S.W.3d 706 (2006) BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Barbara GOSS, Appellee. No. 06-05-00036-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana. Submitted June 14, 2006. Decided November 20, 2006. Rehearing Overruled December 19, 2006. *710 Deborah J. Race, Ireland, Carroll & Kelley, PC, Cha

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT., PETITIONER, v.Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. CommissionerDocket No. 33065.United States Board of Tax Appeals

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06

RONEY, Circuit Judge: Dr. Church E. Murdock appeals his conviction for willfully failing to file federal income tax returns for three years. The sole issue presented by Murdock’s brief is this: “whether the trial judge erred by withholding documents from defendant in evidentiary hearing which could have sustained his motion to quash i

Affirmed in Part and Reversed and Remanded in Part and Opinion filed November 13, 2003 Affirmed in Part and Reversed and Remanded in Part and Opinion filed November 13, 2003.

MacKINNON, Circuit Judge, dissenting: Since I do not perceive any significant fault in the district court’s disposition of this matter, I would affirm the judgment under review. I. THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION The 327 documents in dispute, comprising some 765 pages (J.A. 4a n.2), are divided into nine categories (Maj.Op. at - of 194 U.S.App.D.C., at 21 of 598 F.2d). Cat

314 A.2d 767 (1974) MAY DEPARTMENT STORES COMPANY, INC., t/a the Hecht Company, Appellant, v. Elsa V. DEVERCELLI, as Administratrix of the Estate of Rudolfo Devercelli, Appellee. No. 6052. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued April 24, 1972. Decided December 14, 1973. Rehearing En Banc Denied February 13, 1974.

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge: This is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 1 case, although it takes on the troubling coloration of a dispute about the discovery rights of respondents in National Labor Relations Board proceedings. The district court

KILEY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff, Flick-Reedy Corporation, sued Hydro-Line Manufacturing Company for infringement of United States Patents No. 2,798,777 and No. 2,842,284, *548 and its registered copyright A-338557. The district court, in findings of fac

JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, dissenting: This appeal presents the esoteric question whether § 2(b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act (the McCarran Act), 15 U.S.C.A. § 1012(b), bars the application of the disclosure requirements of the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1601 et seq. (TIL) when an insurance company provides premium financing in connection with the sale of an insurance policy in Alabama, and

Pfeifer, J., dissenting. {¶ 49} What the majority does today is unheard of. It revisits a case decided over 30 years ago, declares that that case’s holding should be applied prospectively only, and thereby exempts an entire class of defendants from strict tort liability. Today’s holding is an affront to stare decisis, runs contrary to our own case law, and makes a mockery of the Chevron Oil test while