Cases

PER CURIAM. By petition for writ of prohibition, Philip Morris USA, Inc., seeks review of the trial court’s order denying petitioner’s motion for disqualification. We have jurisdiction. See, e.g., Lusskin v. State, 717 So.2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). By order entered on June 27, 2012, we granted the petition for writ of prohibition and directed the lower tribunal to appoint a successor judge. We now write to e

848 N.E.2d 1 (2005) 219 Ill.2d 182 302 Ill.Dec. 1 Sharon A. PRICE et al., Appellees, v. PHILIP MORRIS, INC., Appellant. No. 96236. Supreme Court of Illinois. December 15, 2005. Dissenting Opinion Upon Denial of Rehearing May 5, 2006. *5 George C. Lombardi, Jeffrey M

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BARBARA M. G. LYNN, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Cessna Aircraft Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket Entry # 66]. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. I. BACKGROUND On January 24, 2003, a Cessna C208B model aircraft crashed near San Angelo, Texas, injuring th

337 B.R. 82 (2006) Mary & Larry PATTERSON, et al. v. Dean MORRIS, et al. and Robert Bauer, et al. v. Dean Morris, et al. Civ.A. Nos. 05-2177, 05-2189, 05-2191, 05-2178. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. January 25, 2006. *83 *84 Jennifer N. Willis, Cater & Willi

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER delivered the opinion of the Court. *994**547From 2012 to 2015, Morris County awarded $4.6 million in taxpayer funds to repair twelve churches, as part of a historic preservation program. This appeal raises two questions: whether the

{¶ 1} Appellant, Franklin County Job and Family Services ("FCJFS"), appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas finding FCJFS in contempt pursuant to R.C. 2716.21(E) for failing to properly answer and comply with the court's order and notice of garnishment that summoned FCJFS, as garnishee, in the R.C. Chapter 2716 nonwage garnishment action of plaintiff-appellee, William Doss.

ORDER Carr, Senior United States District Judge1 This is an “Engle -progeny”2 lawsuit by Plaintiff Judith Berger (“Mrs. Berger”), ■ a former smoker of cigarettes, against the manufacturer of those cigarettes, Defendant Philip Morris USA, Inc. (“PM USA”). Mrs. Berger, who now suffers from advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (“CO

WRIGHT, District Judge: *1099 Plaintiff Judith Berger ("Mrs. Berger") 1 sued Philip Morris USA, Inc. ("Philip Morris") for intentional and unintentional torts, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for smoking-related injur

OPINION OF THE COURT Pigott, J. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has asked us to determine whether this State recognizes an *445independent equitable cause of action for medical monitoring and, if so, what the elements, appropriate statute of limitations and accrual date are for that particular cause of action.

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1945 STEPHEN V. KOLBE; ANDREW C. TURNER; WINK'S SPORTING GOODS, INCORPORATED; ATLANTIC GUNS, INCORPORATED; ASSOCIATED GUN CLUBS OF BALTIMORE, INCORPORATED; MARYLAND SHALL ISSUE, INCORPORATED; MARYLAND STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED; NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED; MARYLAND

916 F.Supp. 61 (1996) Mary KEARNEY, as Administratrix of the Estates of Maureen O'Neill, Charlene O'Neill, Stacy O'Neill, and Leanne O'Neill, Plaintiff, v. PHILIP MORRIS, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 92-11079-REK. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. February 16, 1996. *62 Stephen R. Fine, Stephen R. Fine & As

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, United States District Judge *133In 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of this Court issued a 1,600-page opinion and a final judgment and remedial order in the above captioned case finding that the defendants had made false, deceptive, and misleading statements and mandating that they publish corrective statements as a remedy. See United States v.

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: Defendants appeal an order remanding these class actions to state court for want of jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), Pub.L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), and on the ground of equitable remand in bankruptcy. Finding the remand order proper in all respects, we affirm it in regard to CAFA, and we dismiss, for want of jurisdiction, the remand order in the Baue

McClendon, j. pin this appeal, plaintiffs, Mary Kozolis Morris and Thomas E. Morris, challenge the trial court judgment granting summary judgment in favor of defendant, Donald A. Nanz, individually, and dismissing their claim for damages against him in his mdmdual capacity. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On January 22, 1999, Mary and Thomas Morris pu

*123 MEMORANDUM OPINION Gladys Kessler, United States District Judge More than 15 years ago, the United States filed this RICO action against the major cigarette manufacturers operating in 1999. In 2006, after years of discovery, pre-trial litigation, and a nine-month bench trial,

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and arguments of the parties. It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed. *590We reject the appellant’s challenge to

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: Defendants appeal an order remanding these class actions to state court for want of jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), Pub.L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), and on the ground of equitable remand in bankruptcy. Finding the remand order proper in all respects, we affirm it in regard to CAFA, and we dismiss, for want of jurisdiction, the remand order in the Bauer </

176 P.3d 1255 (2008) 344 Or. 45 Mayola WILLIAMS, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jesse D. Williams, Deceased, Respondent on Review, v. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, nka Philip Morris USA Inc., Petitioner on Review, and RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, Fred Meyer, Inc., and Philip Morris Companies, Inc., Defendants. (CC 9705-03957; CA A106791; SC S051805). Supreme Court of

MEMORANDUM OPINION Gladys Kessler, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Defendants R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (“RJRT”) and Lorillard Tobacco *33 Company (“Lorillard”) (collectively, “Defendants”)

793 F.Supp.2d 164 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 99-2496 (GK). United States District Court, District of Columbia. June 22, 2011. *165 Daniel K. Crane-Hirsch, Linda Margaret McMahon, Renee Brooker, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Consumer Litigatio