Cases

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: Defendant Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. appeals the judgment of the district court in favor of the plaintiffs, James Cotton and Gerald Eickhoff, on their claim for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. The district court entered judgment for the plaintiff

GURICH, J. with whom TAYLOR, C.J. joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part T1 I concur with the majority that summary judgment is not a procedure available in the Workers' Compensation Court practice. However, in this case, the trial court ruled only on a question of law at Pre-Hearing Conference, a procedure which may be used by the trial judge to resolve issues prior t

RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge. Primarily at issue in this appeal from a summary judgment is qualified immunity’s being granted for a police officer’s use of deadly force against a felony suspect, injuring him. This action concerns the various claims of four plaintiffs against numerous defendants; the appeal is from a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) judgment (parti

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 1, 2013 No. 12-20296 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ROBERT R. TOLAN; MARIA

NEWSOM, Circuit Judge: This is a case about cotton. B. B. King once called cotton "a force of nature"-"[t]here's a poetry to it," he wrote, "hoeing and growing cotton." 1 Here, the poetry of the hoeing and growing has given way to a *

GREGG COSTA, Circuit Judge:' Alfred and Rubbie Cotton were among the thousands of Louisianans whose properties were either damaged or destroyed when Hurricane Isaac made landfall. in August 2012. The Cottons owned seven rental properties in LaPlace, Louisiana; each was damaged during the storm. The Cottons’ properties were covered by both wind and flood insurance. They had purchased a windstorm policy fro

Justice RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court. I. Introduction This is an appeal from a water court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgment and Decree ("judgment") upholding rules related to certain new withdrawals from the confined aquifer in Water Division Three ("the rules")1. Appellant Cotton Creek Circles, LLC ("Opponent") asserts that the rules ar

Justice DEVINE delivered the opinion of the Court. Two groups of cotton farmers sue to rescind contracts in which they agreed to sell cotton through a cooperative marketing pool. The farmers allege that they were fraudulently induced to join the cooperative and seek damages, declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees under various statutes. Because the agreemen

OPINION ON REMAND JIM R. WRIGHT, CHIEF JUSTICE This is a consolidated interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s orders in which it ■denied Venture Cotton Cooperative’s and Noble Americas Corp.’s motions to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). See 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16; Tex. Civ. PRAc. & Rem.Code Ann. § 51.016 (Wes

Wood, Chief Judge. Jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has reminded us, "is a word of many, too many meanings." Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't , 523 U.S. 83 , 90,

OPINION JIM R. WRIGHT, Chief Justice. This is a consolidated interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s orders in which it denied Venture Cotton Cooperative’s and Noble Americas Corp.’s motions to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). See 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 51.016 (West Supp.2012)

Justice EID, concurring in part and dissenting in part. The majority finds that a water court judge has the authority under C.R.C.P. 54(d) ("Rule 54(d)") to assess costs against a member of the public who protests rules proposed by the state engineer in a section 37-92-501(8)(a), C.R.S. (2009), proceeding because such a proceeding "closely resembles a contested adjudication."

OPINION {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, National City Commercial Capital Corporation ("National City"), dba and fka Information Leasing Corporation, appeals the decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas granting a motion to dismiss its complaints for lack of personal jurisdiction. {¶ 2} Originally consolidated under Case No. CA2005-08-223, these three cases

[Cite as State v. Cotton, 2025-Ohio-1463.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 114474 v. : BRANDON COTTON, :

406 F.Supp.2d 585 (2005) In re COTTON YARN ANTITRUST LITIGATION. No. Civ.A.1:04 MD 1622. United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina. November 9, 2005. *586 *587 Aaron F. Biber, Mansfield Tanick & Cohen, P.A., Heidi M. Drewes-Silton, Richard A. Lockridge, W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge Grinda

393 F.Supp.2d 756 (2005) Joetta DRAKE, as legal guardian for Adrian V. COTTON, an incapacitated person, and the Minnesota Department of Human Services, Plaintiffs, v. Francis D. KOSS, individually and in his official capacity; Dennis Johnson, individually and in his official capacity; Bonnie E. Case, individually and in her official capacity; Jane Lilienthal, individually and in her official capacity; Edward Springman, individually and in his off

Chapter 7 JUDGMENT ON PARTIES’ CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JOHN E. WAITES, US Bankruptcy Judge, District of South Carolina Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the attached Order, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Arabi Gin Company, BCT Gin Company, Inc., Coley Gin & Fertilizer Company, Jones Cou

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. On April 28, 2005, following a jury trial, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas entered a judgment against defendant-appellant Delta Cotton Co-Operative, Inc., awarding damages to plaintiffs-appellees Syngenta Seeds, Inc., and Syngenta Participations AG (collectively “Syngenta Seeds” or “Syngenta”) for infringement of Sy

ORDER JOHN E. WAITES, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, District of South Carolina This matter is before the Court following a trial on the complaint in the above-captioned adversary proceeding. The parties have expressly consented to this Court’s entry of final orders and judg-merits. Therefore, the Court is permitted “to hear and determine and to enter appropriate orders and judgments.”1

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WERLEIN, District Judge. Pending is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 32), an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 34), a Motion for Oral Hearing on Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 35), and a Motion to Strike Counterclaims Set Forth in Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Document No. 37), filed by