Cases

USCA11 Case: 24-12773 Document: 77-1 Date Filed: 05/26/2026 Page: 1 of 67 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-12773 ____________________ WILLIAM DRUMMOND,

OPINION THOMAS, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, we review the district court’s order entering a stipulated judgment in an action brought by Southern California Edison Co. (“SoCal Edison”), an electric public utility that provides retail electric service in Southern California, against the Commissioners (“Commissioners”) of the California Public Utilities Commission (“the Commission”), which regulates the r

*649MEMORANDUM DECISION RE: WHETHER A RENEWABLE POWER PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT IS A FORWARD CONTRACT UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(6) SARAH SHARER CURLEY, Bankruptcy Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court on the Motion of Clear Peak Energy, Inc., the *650Debt

295 B.R. 635 (2003) In re PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, Debtor. No. 01-30923DM. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California. May 15, 2003. *636 *637 *638 *639 Benjamin Hoch, Dianne Coffino, Marc Hirschfield, Michael C.

73 F.Supp.2d 1148 (1999) Myron S. GRITCHEN, et al., Plaintiff, v. Gordon W. COLLIER, et al., Defendants. No. SA CV 98-864-GLT[JW]. United States District Court, C.D. California, Southern Division. October 18, 1999. *1149 Peter J. Eliasberg, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff. Larry J. Ro

OPINION AND ORDER MELINDA HARMON, District Judge. Pending before the Court in the above referenced cause, alleging in Dr. Doris M. Jackson’s Second Amended Complaint age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”), Texas Labor Code § 21.051, denial of promised medical leave benefits under Texas statutory and common law, breach of contract and promissory estoppel, ret

307 F.3d 794 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Loretta M. LYNCH; Henry M. Duque; Richard A. Bilas; Carl W. Wood; Geoffrey F. Brown, Commissioners of California Public Utilities Commission, Defendants-Appellees.Utility Reform Network, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant.Southern California Edison Company, Plaintiff-Appellee,Reliant Energy Services, Inc.; Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, LP, Intervenors-Appellan

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 1999-CA-00505-SCT KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, INC. v. J. C. JOHNSON AND KERRY LYNN JOHNSON DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/18/1998 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. L. BRELAND HILBURN, JR. COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: STUART G. KR

Opinion DUARTE, J. These two consolidated cases involve the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (the Act) (Health & Saf. Code, § 38500 et seq.; see Stats. 2006, ch. 488; § 1, p. 3419, enacting Assem. Bill No. 32 (2005-2006 Reg. Sess.), popularly known as “AB 32”).1 The Act was passed by a simple majority vote of

182 B.R. 493 (1994) In re BUTTES GAS & OIL CO., Debtor. BUTTES GAS & OIL CO., Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, Steven R. Ritchie, Its Executive Officer, State Water Resources Control Board, John Caffrey, Its Acting Chairperson, California Environmental Protection Agency, and James Strock, Its Agency Secretary, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 85-07494-H3-11. Adv. No. 93-4312.

369 B.R. 745 (2007) Ann C. JONES, Debtor. Ann C. Jones, Appellant, v. Boston Gas Company d/b/a Keyspan Energy Delivery New England, Appellee. BAP No. MB 06-056. Bankruptcy No. 06-10105-RS. United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit. June 8, 2007. *746 David G. Baker, Esq. on brief for Appellant. Chr

304 B.R. 395 (2004) In re PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation, Debtor. No. 01-30923DM. United States District Court, N.D. California. January 5, 2004. *396 *397 Stephen C. Neal, Martin S. Schenker, Cooley, Godward, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, James L. Lopes, Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Ca

FILED IN st 1 COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TX 12/07/2015 NO. CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, CLERK IN THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS FOR TH

WARDLAW, Circuit Judge: In these consolidated bankruptcy appeals, the California State Water Resources Control Board (the “State Board”) and the California Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (the “Fund”) challenge the district court’s orders denying them Eleventh Amendment immunity. In particular, the State Board contends that it is an arm of the state of California, that it did not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity,

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge. In this case of first impression in the courts of appeals, we are asked to decide whether a federal district court may exercise bankruptcy jurisdiction over generally nonremovable claims brought under the Securities Act of 1933. This is a close question, as it involves a direct conflict between two unambiguous statutes — Section 22(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,2

368 F.3d 86 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.WORLDCOM, INC., Bernard J. Ebbers, James C. Allen, Max E. Bobbitt, Arthur Andersen, LLP, Citigroup Global Markets, Clifford Alexander, Jr., Judith Areen, Carl J. Aycock, Francesco Galesi, Stiles A. Kellett, Jr., Gordon S. Macklin, John A. Porter, Bert C. Roberts, Jr., John W. Sidgmore, Lawrence C. Tucker, Juan Villalonga, ABN AMRO Incorporated, Bank of America

798 So.2d 374 (2001) KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, INC. v. J.C. JOHNSON and Kerry Lynn Johnson. No. 1999-CA-00505-SCT. Supreme Court of Mississippi. February 8, 2001. Rehearing Denied May 10, 2001. *376 Stuart G. Kruger, Jackson, for Appellant. Pat M. Barrett, Lexington, Isaac K. Byrd, Jr., Preciou

ROTH, Circuit Judge Congress may grant eminent domain power to private companies acting in the public interest. This appeal requires us to determine the limits on Congress's grant of eminent domain power to private companies building gas lines under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h). The NGA gives natural gas companies the power to acquire property b

398 F.3d 1098 Bill LOCKYER, Attorney General of the State of California; The State of California, ex rel, Plaintiffs-Appellants, andDepartment of Water Resources, Plaintiff,v.MIRANT CORPORATION; Mirant Americas, Inc.; Mirant California Investments, Inc.; Mirant California, L.L.C.; Mirant Americas Energy Marketing LP; Mirant Delta, L.L.C.; Mirant Potrero, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees. No. 04-15024.

MEMORANDUM OPINION READY, Chief Judge. This case is before us, on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, so that we may decide a delicate problem of constitutional interpretation. Does the Eleventh Amendment bar a federal court from assessing attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses against a state defendant which has unsuccessfully defended, in bad faith and in a vexatious a