Cases

McKAY, Circuit Judge. This is a consolidated class action securities case in which Plaintiffs allege that various corporate officers of Chesapeake Energy Corporation materially misled the public about Chesapeake’s real financial condition in violation of federal securities laws. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, holding that Plaintiffs had f

454 F.Supp. 960 (1978) UNITED STATES of America, v. Harry Virgil McCLENDON, Ronald Jones, Defendants. Crim. No. 77-275. United States District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. August 16, 1978. *961 Judith K. Giltenboth, Asst. U.S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff. George Schumacher, Federal Public Defender, Pittsburgh, Pa.,

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-18-00327-CR ___________________________ EDWARD DEWANE BROCKMAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS On Appeal from the 297th Distr

Supreme Court oF NEVADA (or Wva7A «eee 138 Nev., Advance Opinion 38 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA MAX VARGAS, INDIVIDUALLY, No. 82218 . Appellant, es J MORALES INC., a Respondent. JUN 02 2022 © ei A. CLE oe PMicr CEPUTY CLERK Appeal from a district court order setting aside a default judgment pursuant to NRCP 60(b)(1) and (6). Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Rob Bare, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Peralta Law Group and Oscar Peralta, Las Vegas, for Appellant.

138 Nev., Advance Opinion 3g IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA MAX VARGAS, INDIVIDUALLY, No. 82218 Appellant, vs. FILE J MORALES INC., Respondent. Appeal from a district court order setting aside a default

McClendon, j. |2The defendant appeals a trial court judgment that granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and denied her exception of prematurity, denied her motion for summary judgment, and dismissed her reconventional demand. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This matter began as an exec

BACHARACH, Circuit Judge. *331 This appeal turns on mootness. The issue arose when Utah changed its law governing professional fundraising consultants. Utah officials had interpreted its old law to require the plaintiff, Rainbow Direct Marketing, to register and obtain a permit in the State

McFADDEN, Judge. After a jury trial, Roger Lee Green II was convicted of battery and obstruction of a law enforcement officer. He argues on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting other acts evidence, but the trial court did not abuse his discretion in admitting the evidence. Green argues that the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence of the victim’s prior conviction, but the trial court was authorized to fi

WALTER J. HORRELL v. LISA C. MATTHEWS. No. 2006 CA 1838. Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit. August 15, 2007. WALTER HORRELL Plaintiff-Appellant. Covington, LA In Proper Person. KATHLEEN D. LAMBERT Attorney for STEPHENSON, MATTHEWS, CHAVARRI & LAMBERT, L.L.C. Defendant-Appellee. New Orleans, LA Lisa C. Matthews. BEFORE: PARRO, GUIDRY, and McCLENDON, JJ.</

Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed March 13, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01037-CR FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial Distri

783 F.Supp.2d 736 (2011) CENTRIFUGAL FORCE, INC., Plaintiff, v. SOFTNET COMMUNICATION, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 08 Civ. 5463 (CM)(GWG). United States District Court, S.D. New York. May 11, 2011. *738 Steven Mancinelli, Codispoti & Associates, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiff. Catherine Marie Clayton, Gibbons P.C.

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. Appellee Jacob Ind has been incarcerated in Colorado state prisons since 1992. At the time he filed this lawsuit on March 13, 2009, he was in administrative segregation at the Colorado State Penitentiary (“CSP”) subject to a limit of two personal books imposed by the Colorado Department of Corrections (“CDOC”). Mr. Ind filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S

Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Matamoro (2021 NY Slip Op 05741) Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Matamoro 2021 NY Slip Op 05741 Decided on October 20, 2021 Appellate Division, Second Department Dillon, J., J. </

Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Matamoro (2021 NY Slip Op 05741) Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Matamoro 2021 NY Slip Op 05741 Decided on October 20, 2021 Appellate Division, Second Department Dillon, J.

602 F.Supp. 252 (1985) John Thomas WALL, Plaintiff, v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 3-83-0184-H. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. February 4, 1985. *253 Brian D. Weinstein, Sarah Griffin, Baron & Associates, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff. Jim E. Cowles, Cl

496 F.Supp.2d 859 (2007) Andrea HUISJACK and Eric Huisjack, Plaintiffs, v. MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC. and The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Defendants. No. 2:07-cv-259. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. July 2, 2007. *860 Robert W. Kerpsack CO LPA, Amy K. Schermer, Buckley King, Daniel R. Mor

601 F.Supp. 399 (1984) Leslie YOUNG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. A.C. YOUNG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. Ray OTT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. Melvin WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORTY-EIGHT INSULATIONS, INC. et al., Defendants. George R. ODER, et al., Plainti

TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s dismissal of a securities class action against ZAGG, Inc. and its former CEO and Chairman, Robert Pedersen, alleging violations of the antifraud provisions of the securities laws. The plaintiffs allege Ped-ersen failed to disclose in several of ZAGG’s SEC filings the fact that he had pledged nearly half of his ZA

ORDER THE HONORABLE ALFRED H. BENNETT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is Plaintiff Joshua D. Zolicoffer aka Passion Star’s Amended Complaint (Doc. # 35),' Defendant Brad Livingston’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 40), and Plaintiffs Response (Doc. # 54). Having considered the arguments and the applicable law, the Court defers ruling on Defendant’s Motion for the reasons set forth in

HOLDRIDGE, J., dissenting. . hi respectfully dissent from the .per cu-riam opinion allowing the trial court’s judgment to stand. The trial court’s ruling, which effectively permits a creditor of Mrs. Burger’s husband to seize her separate property, was clearly erroneous and without basis in the law or jurisprudence. Like the trial court, this court now fails to properly interpret and apply La. C.C. art. 2329 to