Cases

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District IV, denied.

Petition for rehearing denied.

¶ 133. ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J. {concurring). I respectfully concur in the mandate. In my view, the lead opinion and the dissent have made this case much more complicated and potentially more far-reaching in effect than it should be. This case can and should be decided narrowly: ours is a certiorari review. ¶ 134. Our review in this case is limited. On certiorari review

APPOINTMENT OF PRETRIAL JUDGE IN THE FOLLOWING MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION CASE: Pursuant to Administrative Rule 13, the cases listed on Appendix A, attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes, and tag-along cases if any, are transferred to Judge Tracy Christopher of the 295th District Court of Harris County. Justice CASTILLO not sitting. APPENDIX A Amended Appendix A, Part I and

398 F.Supp.2d 563 (2005) In re SILICA PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. No. MDL 1553. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Corpus Christi Division. June 30, 2005. *564 *565 *566 John R. Fabry, Liaison Counsel, for all plaintiffs. Darrell Lee Barger, Liaiso

SECTION “E” ORDER AND REASONS SUSIE MORGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is Hanover’s motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that Hanover has no duty to defend Masse and no duty to defend Allied as an additional insured.1 For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-19-00399-CV NATIVE OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Appellant v. TEXAS CHROME TRANSPORT, INC., HEADWATERS RESOURCES, INC., MJR TRUCK LINES, INC., AND WILLIAM "WILLIE" GRIFFIN, Appellees From the 85th District Court

MURDOCK, Justice. We granted the petition for a writ of certiorari of BASF Construction Chemicals, LLC (“BASF”),1 in this action filed by Edward Wayne Crabtree and Jeannie West Crabtree to consider several issues raised by BASF regarding the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals to reverse the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of BASF as to the Crabtrees’ claims against BASF. We reverse the

¶ 1. HRUZ, J. The Town of Arcadia appeals an order dismissing its claims against the City of Independence. Independence passed three annexation ordinances; each ordinance pertained to separate land within the towns of Arcadia, Burnside and Lincoln, respectively. Burnside and Lincoln commenced this action challenging the validity of the annexation ordinances; they later stipulated to the dismissal of their

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2017-CA-01386-SCT JOURDAN RIVER ESTATES, LLC AND JOURDAN RIVER RESORT AND YACHT CLUB, LLC v. SCOTT M. FAVRE, CINDY FAVRE AND JEFFERSON PARKER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/22/2017 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LAWRENCE PAUL BOURGEOIS, JR. TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: TINA LORRAINE NICHOLSON GEORGE W. HEALY, IV

ACKERMAN, J., — Defendant, ACF Industries LLC, filed the instant motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §5322(e) on October 6, 2003. This case is one of the asbestos mass tort litigation cases currently coordinated in the Complex Litigation Center of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. It has been brought on behalf of Janet F. Jessop, administratrix of the

ACCEPTED 03-15-00348-CV 6616789 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions by email at: JUD.Reporter@vermont.gov or by mail at: Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801, of any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press. 2019 VT 55

Opinion CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J. In this case, a metal foundry worker who developed interstitial pulmonary fibrosis brought this action (along with his *504 wife) against a variety of companies that supplied products for use in the foundry’s manufacturing process, asserting that th

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE CARTER OIL COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-TX 19-0002 FILED 1-30-2020 Appeal from the Arizona Tax Court No. TX2016-001218 The Honorable Christopher T.

ORDER BRIAN J. DAVIS, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint [Docs. 141, 145, 154, and 156; Motions]. Plaintiffs responded with their Consolidated Brief in Opposition [Doc. 159]. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review. I. BACKGROUND1 Plain

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS; SETTING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Re: Dkt. No. 11 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., United States District Judge Before the Court is the partial motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Fieldturf *964USA, Inc., (“FUSA”), Fieldturf, Inc., and Field

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of - ) ) Thalle Construction Company ) ASBCA Nos. 63685, 63719, 63720 ) 63721, 63734 ) Under Contract No. W912P5-16-C-0001 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Lochlin B. Samples, Esq.

FILED 15-0547 7/24/2015 5:49:28 PM tex-6223072 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr