Cases

[Cite as State v. Hill, 2019-Ohio-3921.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 28110 : v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOOD & WATER WATCH, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 17-1714 (BAH) v. Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al., Defendants. MEMORAN

BERYL A. HOWELL, Chief Judge *42The plaintiff, Food & Water Watch ("FWW"), has filed a nine-count complaint against three defendants, the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA"), the Farm Service Agency ("FSA"), and Deanna Dunning, in her official capacity as an FSA Farm Loan Officer (collectively, "defendants"), under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"),

FEUERSTEIN, District Judge: I. Introduction On September 12, 2017, plaintiff Wolo Manufacturing Corp. ("plaintiff" or "Wolo") commenced this action against defendants ABC Corp., d/b/a Vixenhorns.com ("Vixen"); XYZ Corp., d/b/a Hookedontronics.com ("Tronics"); Aftak Corp. ("Aftak"), d/b/a Aftakcorp.com; and Arie Feldman ("Feldman") (collectively, "defendants"), asserting claims, inter alia , for copyright in

636 F.3d 278 (2011) Beverly BLOUNT-HILL; Marcia D. Connors; Patricia Lynch, President, Dayton Education Association, OEA/NEA; Stacey Range; Kevin Range, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Susan Tave ZELMAN; State of Ohio, Board of Education; State of Ohio Department of Education, Defendants-Appellees, v. Hope Academy Northwest Campus; Sharonda Perkins; Jessica Velasquez; Anthony Robinson; Jennifer Robinson, Intervenors-Appellants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CAPITAL HILL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-3353 (CJN) COHN, GOLDBERG, & DEUTSCH, LLC, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Capital Hill Development, LLC, a real estate holdings company, intended to place a bid at the foreclosure

ORDER: (1)DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE FRED SMITH, (Doc. No. 59); (2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EUGENE VANDERPOL II, (Doc. No. 62); (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE MICHAEL FREEMAN, (Doc. No. 61); AND (4) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (Doc. Nos. 63, 65) Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia, United States Di

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-22-00142-CV ___________________________ SHERI HILL, Appellant V. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC D/B/A L.A. FITNESS, Appellee On Appeal from the 442nd District Court Denton County, Texas

115 P.3d 1065 (2005) Dennis Neil GRIFFITH, Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., an Oregon Corporation; General Metals of Tacoma, Inc., a Washington Corporation; and Jay Robinovitz, individually, and the marital community composed of Jay Robinovitz and "Jane Doe" Robinovitz, husband and wife, Appellants and Cross-Respondents. No. 31130-5-II. The Court of Appeals of Washin

Rel: November 15, 2024 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2

OPINION LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge. Editor Note: The paragraphs related to headnotes 1-105 are found on the supplemental pieces of this opinion on Westlaw. Part 1 is 2014 WL 815553; Part 2 is 2014 WL 815613; Part 3 is 2014 WL 815715; Part 4 is 2014 WL 815869 [Head-notes 1-2]; Part 5 is 2014 WL 815923 [Headnotes 3-51]; Part 6 is 2014 WL 815961 [Headnotes 52-87]; Part 7 is 2014 WL 816086 [Headnotes 88-

Kavanaugh, Circuit Judge, with whom Senior Circuit Judge Randolph joins, dissenting: Introduction and Summary This is a case about executive power and individual liberty. To prevent tyranny and protect individual liberty, the Framers of the Constitution separated the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of t

177 Cal.App.4th 1049 (2009) BRUCE TICHININ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF MORGAN HILL, Defendant and Respondent. No. H031019. Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District. September 21, 2009. *1055 Mesirow & Fink, Steven M. Fink; Law Offices of Bruce Tichinin and Bruce Tichinin for Plaintiffs and Appellants.<

*945OPINION OF THE COURT A. LEON HIGGINBOTHAM, Jr., Circuit Judge: Presently before this court is a consolidated appeal (No. 84-1052) and cross-appeal (No. 84-1051) in a protracted admiralty proceeding for limitation of or exoneration from liability pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 181-195 (1982), arising out of a disastrou

¶1 In 1995, Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc., promoted Dennis Griffith to general manager of its Tacoma scrap metal facility. At that time, Griffith was 52 years old and Schnitzer Steel knew he was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. After Griffith was discharged in 2000, he brought suit alleging discrimination on the basis of his age and religious beliefs. Griffith’s evidence of religious discrimination con

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MARGARET M. MORROW, District Judge. On October 6, 2011, Neva Day filed this action against Sears Holdings Corporation, Sears Holdings Management Corporation, Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears Outlet Stores, LLC, and certain fictitious defendants.1 Day pled eleven causes of action: (1) gender discrimination in violation of

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘o

JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE A pipeline operator challenges a local ordinance prohibiting loading crude oil onto tankers and new structures for that purpose on the grounds that it is preempted under numerous federal and state laws, that it violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, that it violates the business's civil rights, its due process rights, its right to avoid improper delegation,

300 S.W.3d 424 (2009) Eric COX, Appellant, v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF TEXAS, INC. and Tony Wadley, Appellees. No. 2-08-446-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth. October 29, 2009. *427 Susan Hutchison, S. Rafe Foreman, Kern Lewis, Foreman, Lewis & Hutchison P.C., Grapevine, TX, for Appellant. Holly H. Williamson, Fran

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1517 INTERTAPE POLYMER CORP., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. No. 14-1553 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INTERTAPE POLYMER CORP., Respondent. On Pet