Cases

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, Presiding Judge. I respectfully dissent. Courts should protect the reasonable expectations of parties to an insurance contract, As well-stated by our Supreme Court, “In construing the terms of an insurance policy, this Court applies ‘the meaning which would be attached by an ordinary person of average understanding *663if purchas

MEMORANDUM DALZELL, District Judge. Teresa De Luca (“De Luca”) brings this suit against her former employer, the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania (“Penn” or “the University”), alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. (“FMLA”). De Luca specifically alleges that Penn interfered with her rights under the FMLA and retaliated against her for

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 24a0062p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ JACQUELYN MARES, M.D., │ Plaintiff-Appella

N. PATRICK CROOKS, J. ¶ 57. {dissenting). I strongly disagree with the majority that Menard's lawsuit against Liteway is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.1 The majority concludes that all three ele*617ments for claim preclusion are present and, additionally, that Menard was required to raise its claims in the action brought by

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 21-1019C (E-Filed: March 21, 2022) 1 ) BLUE WATER THINKING, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. )

48 Cal.4th 32 (2010) COMMITTEE FOR GREEN FOOTHILLS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS et al., Defendants and Respondents; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. No. S163680. Supreme Court of California. February 11, 2010. *38

*282JAMES L. DENNIS, Circuit Judge: This appeal raises a First Amendment challenge to a public high school student’s suspension- and transfer to alternative school for his off-campus posting on the Internet of a rap song criticizing, with vulgar and violent lyrics, two named male athletic coaches for sexually harassing female students at his school. The aspiring student

David G. Campbell, Senior United States District Judge *882Plaintiff Keith Goss has sued Defendants United States of America, Tuba City Regional Health Care Corporation ("THC"), and Lynette Bonar, alleging eight claims related to his employment and resignation from THC. Doc. 1. THC and Bonar move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Do

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FILED SEPTEMBER 1998 SESSION January 6, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 03C0

Filed 2/18/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR JILL LAFACE, B305494 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC632679) v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a j

559 N.W.2d 411 (1997) MEADOWBROOK, INC., et al., v. TOWER INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., petitioner, Appellant. No. C6-95-1285. Supreme Court of Minnesota. February 6, 1997. Rehearing Denied March 18, 1997. *413 Stapleton, Nolan & McCall, P.A., Mark Nolan, James T. Hynes, St. Paul, for appellant. Mansfield &

2024 UT App 125 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS LUTISHA MERRILL, Appellee, v. JOHN RICHARD MERRILL, Appellant. Amended Opinion ∗ No. 20210785-CA Filed September 6, 2024 Third District Court, Silver Summit Department The Honorable Ter

804 F.Supp.2d 1279 (2011) Hattie DICKERSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, et al., Defendants. No. 5:08-CV-392 (CAR). United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division. March 31, 2011. *1280 Frances Clay, Macon, GA, for Plaintiff. William David Gifford, U.S. Attorney Office, Macon, GA,

* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts II through IV of the Discussion. [EDITORS' NOTE: TEXT NOT CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION APPEARS WITH GRAY BACKGROUND BELOW.] [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Pa

85 F.Supp.2d 1356 (2000) Hiram STURM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARRIOTT MARQUIS CORP., Host Marriott Corp. and Christopher G. Townsend, Defendants, and Atlanta Marriott Marquis Limited Partnership II, Nominal Defendant. No. CIV.A.1:97-CV3706TWT. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. February 7, 2000. *1357<

Opinion of the Court WISS, Judge: At his general court-martial, appellant pleaded not guilty to a specification alleging malingering by self-inflicting injury in a hostile fire pay zone for the purpose of avoiding service as an enlisted person, in violation of Article 115, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 915. Under a pretrial agreement, however, he pleaded guilty to a lesser-included

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CLEAN LABEL PROJECT FOUNDATION, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 21-cv-3247 (BAH) v. Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant. MEM

URBIGKIT, Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the reasoning of the majority on both fact and principle. Again, we are faced with the issue causing the greatest divorce case strife involving exces-siveness of court ordered child support where the present capacity to pay is not clearly or factually shown. The record does project, conversely, that the trial court based the child support award on appellant’s previ

Memorandum Opinion and Order MARK E. FULLER, District Judge. I. Introduction Despite experiencing extreme financial difficulty at the time, Todd and Rhonda *1337Pittman — the plaintiffs in this case — went on a European vacation in the summer of 2010. They returned stateside to a burglarized home; their art collection was m

48 Cal.4th 32 (2010) COMMITTEE FOR GREEN FOOTHILLS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS et al., Defendants and Respondents; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. No. S163680. Supreme Court of California. February 11, 2010. *38