Cases

ALARCON, Circuit Judge: Charles R. McDaniel, a participant of the Chevron Corporation Retirement Plan, and a class of similarly situated plaintiffs (collectively, the “class”) appeal from the district court’s final order granting summary judgment in favor of the Chevron Corporation (“Chevron”), the Chevron Corporation Retirement Plan (the “Chevron Plan”), and the Chevron Corporation Retirement Plan Administrator (the “Plan A

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REBECCA R. PALLMEYER, District Judge. Plaintiffs Dan Neil and Eric Bailey, former employees of the Tribune Company, have brought this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Neil and Bailey charge Defendants Great-Banc, Sam Zell, and EGI-TRB L.L.C., with breaches of fiduciary duty stemming from the leveraged buyout of the Tribune Company by

ROBIN F. WYNNE, Judge. hln August 2010, Mark Stephen Hower-ton pled guilty to one count of computer child pornography and three counts of internet stalking of a child. After conducting a sentencing hearing, the trial court entered a judgment and commitment order in which it sentenced appellant to 120 months’ suspended sentence for the computer child-pornography charge, 240 months’ impriso

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 78 Ohio St.3d 330.] ZELL, TRUSTEE, APPELLEE, v. HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES; CINCINNATI SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLANT. [Cite as Zell v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 1997-Ohio-213.] Taxation—Real property valuation—Board of Tax Appeals’ valuation of property reasonable and lawful, when—Scope of Supreme Court’s review of Board

203 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) CHARLES R. MCDANIEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.THE CHEVRON CORPORATION; THE CHEVRON CORPORATION PENSION OPINION PLAN; THE CHEVRON CORPORATION RETIREMENT PLAN ADMINISTRATOR, Defendants-Appellees. No. 98-16363 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Argued and Submitted Janua

PER CURIAM: * The judgment of the district court entered April 20, 2006, is AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons given in its Order and Reasons, Thompson v. Nissan North America, Inc., 429 F.Supp.2d 759 (E.D.La.2006), entered on the same date. The pending Motion For Judicial Notice is DENIED. AFFIRMED. MOTION DENIED. Pursuant

429 F.Supp.2d 759 (2006) Leonard R. THOMPSON, et al v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al. Civil Action No. 03-0172. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. April 20, 2006. *760 *761 *762 R. Bradley Lewis, Charles M. Hughes, Jr., Talley, Anthony, Hughe

711 S.E.2d 653 (2011) 289 Ga. 353 PRIDE v. KEMP. No. S11A0159. Supreme Court of Georgia. June 13, 2011. Rodney Samuel Zell, Zell & Zell, P.C., Atlanta, for appellant. Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Paula Khristian Smith, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Sheila *654 Elizabeth Gallow, Asst. Atty. Gen., Brent

Foster brought this securities action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama after he lost a $40,000 investment. After a jury verdict in his favor, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. 759 F.2d 838 (1985). That court held that Jesup Lamont was not a "seller" under § 12 (2) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C.A. § 77l (2), and that its participation as unde

336 F.Supp.2d 637 (2003) EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU, A Mutual Company, Plaintiff, v. The BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, Intervenor, v. Longview Creosoting Company, et al, Defendants. No. 6:01-CV-536. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division. July 16, 2003. *638

Contested Matter MEMORANDUM OPINION Kevin R. Huennekens, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Before the Court in this contested matter 1 is the Motion of SunTrust Bank (“SunTrust”) seeking entry of an order granting it standing to pursue certain avoidance actions on behalf of the bankruptcy estate (the “Motion”). A hearing was conducted on the Motion

311 Ga. 485 FINAL COPY S21A0091, S21X0092. ALLEN v. DAKER; and vice versa. NAHMIAS, Presiding Justice. At a jury trial in 2012, Waseem Daker was found guilty of malice murder and other crimes. Daker had hired or was appointed four attorneys, all of whom were allowed to withdraw before or near the beginning of the trial; he ultimately elected to expressly waive his right to counsel so that he could represent himself (commonly referred to as proceeding “pro se”) during the

FIELD, District Judge: This petition for review of a decision of the Tax Court of the United States presents as its only issue whether two lump-sum distributions received by petitioner, E. N. Funkhouser, during the year 1959 from a pension trust were paid to him “on account of * * * separation from the service” within the meaning of Sec

DUBINA, Circuit Judge: The Appellants in this case are a group of insurance companies (the “Insurers”) who were sued in state court by Appellee Russell Corporation (“Russell”). The Insurers removed the case on diversity grounds, but the district court remanded for want of unanimous consent to removal. We affirm. I. Background

MURDOCK, J., dissents. SEE, Justice (concurring in overruling the application for rehearing and concurring in the result as to the opinion). I concur in overruling the application for a rehearing. I concur in the result reached by the main opinion for the following reasons. I concurred in McKenzie v. Killian, 887 So.2d 861 (Ala.2004), the controlling precedent i

PER CURIAM. The question presented is whether the trial court properly granted a directed verdict in a proceeding to set aside homestead. Recalling that the standard to be applied “[i]n considering the propriety of a directed verdict for a defendant [is that] the trial court is required to evaluate the testimony in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and every reasonable intendment deducible from the evidence must be

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 78 Ohio St.3d 325.] CINCINNATI SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLANT, v. HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as Cincinnati Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 1997-Ohio-212.] Taxation—Real property valuation—Board of Tax Appeals’ valuation of property reasonable and lawful, when. (No. 96-934—Submitted October 31, 1996—

929 F.Supp. 1529 (1996) Davida JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Zell MILLER, et al., Defendants, and Lucious Abrams, Jr., et al., Intervenors-Defendants, and United States of America, Intervenor-Defendant. Civil Action No. CV 196-40. United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division. May 24, 1996. As Corrected June 18, 1996. <

ORDER This Court’s September 12, 1994, Order declared Georgia’s Eleventh Congressional District unconstitutional. Johnson v. Miller, 864 F.Supp. 1354 (S.D.Ga.1994) (“Johnson I”). The Supreme Court affirmed our decision in Miller v. Johnson, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2475, 132 L.Ed.2d 762 (1995) (“Johnson II ”). In accordance with the Supreme Court’s affirmance, we held a hearing on August 22,

976 F.2d 673 Horace LUCKEY, III, M.V. Booker, William F. Braziel, Jr., G.Terry Jackson, Joseph Saia, Charles Thornton, on theirbehalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,Beverly Cannon, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.Zell MILLER, Governor, Joe C. Crumbley, Hon., Chief Judge ofClayton Judicial Circuit, Robert J. Noland, Hon.,Chief Judge of Douglas Judicial Circuit,Defendants-Appellees. N