Cases

66 B.R. 821 (1986) In re Zenobia ELLIS, Debtor. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID, Appellant, v. Zenobia ELLIS, Appellee. No. 85 C 5742. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. August 4, 1986. Richard Grossman, James C. O'Connell, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Linda Spak, Spak & Associates, Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

KILEY, Circuit Judge. Defendants appeal from their convictions, by a jury, of narcotics laws violations : Lyle under two substantive counts, 1 and all under a conspiracy count. 2 We affirm.

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-12-00335-CV _________________ ERIC PAYNE, ZENOBIA PAYNE, BARRY JACKSON,RHONDA SMITH, MICHAEL THOMAS AND JOETTA DARBY, Appellants V. JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND SHERIFF MITCH WOODS IN HIS OFFIC

ELDRIDGE, Judge. We issued a writ of certiorari in these cases to consider several important questions relating to a strict products *428liability cause of action based on failure to warn of the dangerousness of the products, and to reconsider some of the principles governing awards of punitive damages in tort cases.

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, United States District Judge This matter is before the court on defendants' motion for summary judgment (DE 28).2 Also before the court are plaintiff's *572motion to vacate order staying discovery (DE 27) and motion for discovery (DE 43). These motions have been briefed fully. In this posture, th

MEMORANDUM OPINION AMY BERMAN JACKSON, United States District Judge Plaintiff Maysaroh brings this action against defendants American Arab Communications & Translations Center, LLC t/a/ Zenobia Lounge, Farah Atassi, Charif Khanji, and Ahmad Atassi, 1 claiming that defendants violat

684 A.2d 878 (1996) 112 Md. App. 197 Donald G. BECK v. Patricia A. BECK. No. 133, Sept. Term, 1996. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. November 7, 1996. *879 William M. Ferris (Krause & Ferris, on the brief), Annapolis, for Appellant. Jerrold A. Thrope (Caroline G. Ellis, Gordon, Feinblatt, R

HOLSTEIN, Judge, concurring. I fully concur in the majority opinion. However, I believe some additional observations are appropriate. On occasion a punitive damages count is added to an ordinary action in contract or tort where there is no justification other than that a defendant is perceived to have a “deep pocket.” In such cases, the only conduct which may be characterized as evil

Bradshaw v. Maiden, 2020 NCBC 60A. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION MECKLENBURG COUNTY 14 CVS 14445 JAMES W. BRADSHAW; CARLA O. BRADSHAW; RESORT RETAIL ASSOCIATES, INC.; E.C. BROADFOOT; CHRISTINA DUNN CHANDRA; THOMAS F. EGAN; CHARLES EGGERT; MARK P. GARSIDE; DR. JAMES J. GREEN, JR.; ROBERT K. GRUNEWALD; RONALD HOLMES; DAVID LAUCK; CURT W. LEMKAU, JR.; EVAN MIDDLE

824 P.2d 83 (1991) Lula ADAMS, Avelino Alvarez, Isabelle Archuletta, Julian Baker, Donna Barger for Lori Barger, Emily Bell, David Bennett, Clara Bonger, Paul Boston, Jessie Boyd for Bonnie Boyd, Pinya Breyman, Jeanette Buttz, Constance Carey, Mary Cleveland, Annie Chilcote, Pearl Colegrove, Marjorie Collard, Carl Courts, Imogene Davis, Lois Davis, Charles DiDuglielmo, Gladys Ellis, Alfred Feeruz, Anna L. Fisher, Edna Fisher, Gilbert Gallegos, Annie Garc

CHASANOW, Judge, concurring. I concur in the holding of the Court that punitive damages are not warranted in the instant case. My reason for writing separately is to respond to the Court’s discussion about when punitive damages may be awarded in unintentional tort suits. *733The majority says that “the

998 F.Supp. 598 (1997) William L. HIGGINS, et al. v. DIVERSEY CORPORATION. No. CIV. L-95-138. United States District Court, D. Maryland. April 14, 1997. *599 *600 Sidney G. Leech, Andrew Gendron, Baltimore, MD, Stephen W. Lutche, Bel Air, MD, for plaintiffs. Timothy L. Mullin, Donna Bur

MEMORANDUM WARRINER, District Judge. On 26 September 1979 the Court entered an order in the seven consolidated HOME cases granting to plaintiffs in six of those cases 1 an extension of time for class discovery of 45 days to seek information with respect to numerosity and of 60 days to file their motions for class designation.2 Plaintiffs have tendered

402 F.3d 430 J. Douglas PINNEY, M.D.; Patricia S. Colonell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Francis J. Farina, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; Garrett J. Naquin; Ronald Leblanc; Judith A. Kaufman; Asher Rubenstein; Crystall Gilliam; Dimitri Mack; Riedy Gimpelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Sarah Dahlgren, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

665 A.2d 929 (1995) JONATHAN WOODNER CO., et al., Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Francisca BREEDEN, et al., Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Nos. 90-CV-362, 90-CV-541. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued March 9, 1995. Decided September 14, 1995. *931 Walter A. Smith, with whom Stephen G. Vaskov, Robert B. D

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge MICHAEL wrote the opinion, in which Judge LUTTIG joined. Senior Judge KISER wrote a dissenting opinion. OPINION MICHAEL, Circuit Judge: This multidistrict litigation includes five class actions brought initially in the state courts of Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs sue Nokia Inc. and other entities

878 F.Supp. 771 (1994) SEABURY MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL GOLFERS' ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants. Civ.A. No. MJG-92-530. United States District Court, D. Maryland. April 26, 1994. *772 *773 *774 Ty Cobb, Hogan & Hart

HERGET, Judge. The City of Houma, Louisiana in its capacity as owner and operator of a municipal electrical generating and distribution system, instituted this suit to expropriate Lot 2, Block 76 situated on Honduras Street in Houma, jointly owned by Marcus Bolden, Jr., Isiah Bolden, Zenobia Bolden, Willie Bolden, Clarence Bolden, Wilfred Jackson and Earl Bolden for the purpose of erecting

867 A.2d 276 (2005) 385 Md. 1 Arthur J. HOFFMAN, et al. v. Toyome STAMPER, et al. No. 33, September Term, 2004. Court of Appeals of Maryland. February 4, 2005. *279 James E. Carbine (James E. Carbine, Baltimore), Robert L. Byer, Pittsburgh, PA (Daniel J. Tobin, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP, Washington, D