Cases

Slip Op. 19-5 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE MOEN, INC., Plaintiff, Before: Timothy C. Stanceu, Chief Judge v. UNITED STATES, Court No. 15-00161 Defendant. OPINION [Granting plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and denying a

Choe-Groves, Judge: This case addresses the proper classification of various models of toilet paper holders under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS"). 1 Before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment. See Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J., July 27, 2017, ECF No. 25; Mem. L. Supp. Pl.'s M

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2025 ND 163 State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Spencer Jay Moen, Defendant and Appellant No. 20250018 Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Nicholas W. Chase, Judge. AFFIRMED. Opinion of the Cour

626 F.2d 866 Moenv.U. S. 78-2908 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Ninth Circuit 8/11/80 1 C.D.Cal. REVERSED AND REMANDED

238 B.R. 785 (1999) In re Jerome E. MOEN; Jane M. Moen, Debtors. The Merchants National Bank of Winona, Plaintiff-Appellee. v. Jerome E. Moen, Defendant-Appellant. BAP No. 99-6008MN. United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit. Submitted July 20, 1999. Decided September 15, 1999. *786

251 B.R. 726 (2000) In re Kent D. HULL, Debtor. Lenard Moen; Moen Industries, Inc., Appellants, v. Kent D. Hull; Daniel H. Brunner, Chapter 13 Trustee, Appellees. BAP No. EW-99-1265-BPK. Bankruptcy No. 94-03281-K13. United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted January 21, 2000. Decided July 20, 2000.

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ____________ 99-6008MN ____________ In re: Jerome E. Moen; Jane M. Moen * * Debtors * * The Merchants National Bank of Winona

GREENE, J. In this case we must determine whether the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County erred in striking the affidavits of two proposed expert witnesses pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-501(e). Because we conclude that it was error to strike the affidavits, we shall hold that the Circuit Court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of Respondents, Melissa Moen, M.D. et. al (“The Medical Providers”),1

959 A.2d 764 (2008) 406 Md. 1 Charles MARCANTONIO, Personal Representative of The Estate of Sherri Schaefer, et al. v. Melissa MOEN, M.D., et al. No. 4, September Term, 2008. Court of Appeals of Maryland. November 5, 2008. *765 Jack A. Gold (Lawrence S. Lapidus of Karp, Frosh, Lapidus, Wigodsky & Norwi

OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Docs. 51, 52, & 57] • JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge: Plaintiffs are a class of retirees of Defendant Moen, Inc., their spouses, surviving spouses, and eligible dependents1 and the United Automobile Workers union (the UAW). Plaintiffs say that Defendant Moen intends to end retirement healthcare benefits. Plaintiffs also say that the parties have

Plaintiffs Jack A. Sunseri and Consolidated Partners, Ltd. (hereinafter, collectively, Sunseri), appeal from judgment of the circuit court of Rock Island County dismissing with prejudice an action to register a $5,984,686.01 foreign judgment against Macro Cellular Partners (Macro) alone, and then enforce the registered judgment against an individual partner unnamed in the original New York lawsuit. Sunseri requests this court to determine whether the Rock Island County circuit court e

STRANCH, Circuit Judge, dissenting. DISSENT I agree that the Supreme Court’s decision in M & G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, — U.S.—, 135 S.Ct. 926, 190 *275L.Ed.2d 809 (2015), governs this case and have no quarrel with much of the majority’s articulation of its holding. I do not dispute that the Supreme Court rejected c

Ellington, J. ¶1 This case involves a challenge to a finding of contempt for violation of a temporary restraining order. Howard Todd maintains he could not have intentionally disobeyed the order because he had not read it. He also contends the order did not comply with Civil Rule (CR) 65 and therefore violated due process, rendering it void. Todd was properly served with the order, however, and knowledge of its contents is imput

Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two

SALMON, J. This case arises out of a survivorship/wrongful-death lawsuit in which summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants who are healthcare providers. According to the plaintiffs evidence, the decedent’s chance of survival from cancer was eighty percent on the date of the alleged malpractice (failure to order appropriate test and failure to correctly interpret a s

OPINION COLLINS, Judge.* Respondent-employee brought this action claiming that his termination violated the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) governing his employment relationship with appellant-employer, and appellant defamed him by falsely stating that he brought a gun to a meeting. Appellant argues that (1) respondent’s wrongful-discharge claim is interpreted under fede

SIMONS, J. *848Appellants (hereafter, Retirees) are retired employees of the University of California (University) who worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Livermore). They claim that during their employment, the University promised to provide them with University-sponsored group health insurance in their retirement, and this promi

No. 3–07–0468 ______________________________________________________________________________ Filed May 15, 2008 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2008 JACK A. SUNSERI and CONSOLIDATED ) Appeal from the Circuit Court PARTNERS, LTD., ) of the 14th Judicial Circu

Filed 8/1/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE WENDELL MOEN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A153386 v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY (Alameda County OF CALIFORNIA, Super. C