Cases

ORDER LEONARD T. STRAND, United States Magistrate Judge. Introduction The plaintiff, Sandra Dee Morrison, seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denying her applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and disabled widow’s benefits under Title II and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of t

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEPEN-DANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Judge. Presently before the court is Defendants Trinitas LLC and David Oakes’s Motion *912for Summary Judgment. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the court denies the motion in part and grants it in part and adopts the fol

801 F.Supp.2d 30 (2011) The BOARD OF MANAGERS OF the MASON FISK CONDOMINIUM, etc., Plaintiff, v. 72 BERRY STREET, LLC, et al., Defendants. No. (BMC) 10 Civ. 5782. United States District Court, E.D. New York. June 26, 2011. *32 John T. Van Der Tuin, Balber Pickard Battistoni Maldonado & Van Der Tuin, P.C., New York, NY, for Pl

*292¶1 The common enemy rule, which allows landowners to repel surface waters to the detriment of their neighbors, does not apply when the landowner obstructs a watercourse or natural drainway or when the landowner obstructs riparian water from entering a flood channel. Currens v. Sleek, 138 Wn.2d 858, 862-63, 983 P.2d 626, 993 P.2d 900 (1999); Sund v. Keating, 43 Wn.2d 36, 42-43,

583 F.3d 1174 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, on its own behalf and as trustee on behalf of the Lummi Nation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith E. MILNER, Defendant, and Brent C. Nicholson; Mary K. Nicholson, Defendants-Appellants, v. Lummi Nation, Plaintiff-intervener-Appellee. United States of America, on its own behalf and as trustee on behalf of the Lummi Nation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith E. Milner, Defendant-Appellant,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SAYLOR, District Judge. This is a dispute alleging trade-dress infringement and unfair competition brought by a company that sells sports helmets. Plaintiff Bern Unlimited, Inc., has brought suit against six other makers of sports helmets. Bern contends that its helmets have a unique design, featuring a small visor and rounded shape. It further

177 P.3d 716 (2008) Don L. FITZPATRICK and Pam Fitzpatrick, husband and wife; Brad Sturgill and Heather Fitzpatrick Sturgill, husband and wife, Appellants, v. OKANOGAN COUNTY; The State of Washington, Respondents, John L. Hayes and Jane Doe Hayes, husband and wife; and Methow Institute Foundation, Defendants. No. 25161-6-III. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3. Janu

BOGGS, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which SUTTON, J., joined. MARTIN, J. (pp. 979-81), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. OPINION BOGGS, Chief Judge. Lisa Seawright worked for American General Financial Services (“AGF”) from November 1978 until April 2005.1 AGF terminated Seawright’s employment in April 2005. In response, Seawright

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, on its  own behalf and as trustee on behalf of the Lummi Nation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KEITH E. MILNER, Defendant, No. 05-35802 and  D.C. No. CV-01-00809-RBL BRENT C. NICHOLSON; MARY K. NICHOLSON,

698 N.E.2d 796 (1998) Earl E. SAUERHEBER a/k/a Earl E. Sauerheber III, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). No. 89S00-9701-CR-18. Supreme Court of Indiana. September 1, 1998. *800 E. Thomas Kemp, Richmond, for Appellant. Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General, Janet Brown Mallett, De

MAGILL, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. The majority frustrates the intent of Congress and ignores the lessons of history by opening wide the floodgates for the very “second toots” and parasitic lawsuits that Congress sought to prevent with 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A). Rabushka’s qui tam action is the paradigmatic example of the parasitic actions that Congress sought to prevent; Rabushka has merely

426 S.W.2d 33 (1968) Marjorie (West) ENGLISH, Appellant, v. OLD AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent. No. 52986. Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1. March 11, 1968. As Modified on Motion and Rehearing Denied April 10, 1968. *34 George L. Gisler, Kansas City, for appellant; Gisler & How

During the March term, just ended, the judgment of the trial court was reversed by a three to two decision. Two opinions were filed. Considering the case upon motion for a rehearing and as a result of an extensive study of the authorities one of the justices has changed his mind, now being of the opinion that the judgment ought to be affirmed. In coming to this conclusion he but followed the commendable rule of judicial conduct expressed a thousand years ago by Khalif Omar, instructing his fi