Cases

Affirmed and Majority and Concurring and Dissenting Opinions filed December 8, 2020. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-18-00938-CV JAMES HUDGENS, Appellant V. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER, Appellee On Appeal from the 55th District Court Harri

Cite as 2022 Ark. App. 88 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CV-19-969 POP-A-DUCK, INC.; BERRY ABNEY; BUCK Opinion Delivered February 23, 2022 MATTHEWS; LARRY VASSAR; BILLY KYLE; AND ROBERT HARDIN APPEAL FROM THE JACKSON APPELLANT

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 616 This appeal centers around alleged violations of a mutual injunction [hereinafter, Injunction] issued by the District Court of the Third Circuit on July 11, 1997. Fifteen months later, on October 29, 1998, respondent-appellant/cross-appellee Richard B. Leander, Jr. moved for an order to show cause (OSC motio

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge KEENAN wrote the opinion, in which Judge GREGORY and Judge AGEE joined. . BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Circuit Judge: In this appeal, we consider whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the City of Norfolk on claims that the City’s sign ordinan

566 P.2d 171 (1977) Mary Jean WATSON, Appellant, v. Joseph H. McSOUD, Appellee, and Walter Gowers, Defendant. No. 49426. Court of Appeals, of Oklahoma, Division 2. June 7, 1977. Released for Publication June 30, 1977. Joe Sam Vassar, Blackstock, McMillan & Vassar, Bristow, for appellant. Ray H. Wilburn, Tulsa, for appellee. Rel

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHERYL H. LIPMAN, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 59), filed on November 4, 2011. Defendant filed a Response in Opposition (ECF No. 62) on December 1, 2011. Defendant also filed its own

Barrett, Circuit Judge. *656 After finding John Doe guilty of sexual violence against Jane Doe, Purdue University suspended him for an academic year and imposed conditions on his readmission. As a result of that decision, John was expelled from the Navy ROTC program, which terminated both hi

Babcock, Judge Plaintiff William Norris filed suit against the University of Colorado, Boulder (the *1005"University") and its Chancellor Phillip P. DiStefano (collectively, "Defendants") alleging that Defendants: (1) violated Title IX of the Educations Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX"); (2) denied Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process

507 F.3d 281 (2007) Lumumba Kenyatta INCUMAA, a/k/a Theodore Harrison, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jonathan E. OZMINT, Director, SCDC, Defendant-Appellee. No. 04-7824. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued: September 25, 2007. Decided: October 29, 2007. *282 ARGUED: Robert Alexander Schwartz, Arnold

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 17-3565 JOHN DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PURDUE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Nort

OPINION OF THE COURT Sullivan, J. Plaintiff Doris M. Kent, born in 1940 and employed by The Papert Companies, Inc. (PCI), a Texas-based company that represented newspapers in soliciting national advertisers, as primarily a secretary/administrative assistant for its sales staff, has brought this action against PCI and S.W. Papert, III and S.W. Papert, Jr., its president and chairman, respectively, during the

408 N.E.2d 578 (1980) Cynthia Thuma ROHN, Appellant-Petitioner, v. Edison L. THUMA, Appellee-Respondent. No. 2-577A174. Court of Appeals of Indiana, Second District. August 12, 1980. *579 Edward O. DeLaney, Donald E. Knebel, Barnes, Hickam, Pantzer & Boyd, Indianapolis, for appellant-petitioner. James P. Quinn, Buck, B

OPINION CORNELIA A. CLARK, J„ delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GARY R. WADE, C.J., JANICE M. HOLDER, WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., and SHARON G. LEE, JJ., joined. An attorney suspended from the practice of law for eleven months and twenty-nine days, with all but forty-five days of the suspension probat

ORDER STEPHEN R. BOUGH, JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Before the Court are five Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants The Curators of the University of Missouri Identified as University of Missouri — Columbia (Doc. #30), The Curators of the University of Missouri (Doc. # 48), Donnell Young (Doc. # 57), Mark Lucas (Doc. # 55), and Brady Deaton (Doc. # 71). For the reasons discussed below,

MEMORANDUM STENGEL, District Judge. Dr. Andrew Kortyna, a Lafayette College professor, brought this suit against the College and its former Provost after his request to have his attorney represent him at a school disciplinary hearing was denied. Two students have accused him of sexual harassment. These accusations allegedly caused him to develop debilitating anxiety and depression. Dr. Kortyna

OSTEEN, JR., District Judge This case is currently before the court on three motions to dismiss, one filed separately by each Defendant: Duke University ("Duke"), (Doc. 29), Sheila Broderick ("Broderick"), (Doc. 26), and Steven Thomas Bishop ("Bishop"), (Doc. 31). Each Defendant moves to dismiss the relevant claims contained in Plaintiff Colleen McClean's First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION SARA LIOI, District Judge. On October 16, 2012, plaintiffs, Reggie Huff and Lisa Huff, filed a pro se complaint in this Court alleging: violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Cor*1023rupt Organizations Act (“federal RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(b), (c), and (d); violations of Ohio’s “corrupt activity” law (“

Francis J. Bloustein, J. This is an action brought by an owner-driver -of a taxicab licensed by the City of New York, in his own behalf and -on behalf -of all other licensed taxicab owners and drivers similarly situated, against the Chairman of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (hereinafter, “ Commission ”) for a judgment declaring certain amended rules adopted by the Commission, effective July 5, 1972, to be invali

635 F.Supp.2d 152 (2009) T.Z., as guardian of C.G., an Infant, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, the New York City Department of Education, Frank DiFranco, and Robert Raskin, Defendants. No. 05-CV-5111 (CPS)(JMA). United States District Court, E.D. New York. May 22, 2009. *160 Madeline Lee Bryer, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

MAGILL, Circuit Judge. Appellants, the Bridges1 and the O’Dells,2 appeal the district court’s3 order4 denying a new trial, after the liability phase of a jury trial in consolidated and bifurcated Arkansas personal injury and property damage actions alleging exposure to dioxin, a by-product of Agent Orange man