Cases

COURT OF APPEALS COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

667 F.Supp.2d 1032 (2009) ZAMORA ENTERTAINMENT, INC., La Ley Radio Station, and Joel Garcia, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVOR ENTERTAINMENTS, L.L.C., Temerarios International Tours, Inc., and Los Temerarios, Defendants. No. 4:09-cv-344 RP-RAW. United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Central Division. October 23, 2009.

ORDER AND REASONS NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant SWDI, LLC’s (“Defendant” or “SWDI”) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.1 Having considered the motion, the response, the reply, the record, and the applicable law, for the following reasons, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. I. Bac

PER CURIAM: Appellants Penny and John Morris sued Appellees PLIVA, TEVA, and Actavis— generic drug manufacturers — for injuries related to use of the drug metoclopramide (brand-name Reglan). This case is yet another in the expanding cohort controlled by PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2567, 180 L.Ed.2d 580 (2011), which held state law claims against generic manufacturers of Reglan preempted by FDA regula

WILKINS, Circuit Judge: Appellant and relator Anthony Oliver brings this qui tarn action alleging that Appellee Philip Morris USA violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 (2006), 1 by charging the Navy Exchange Service Command (“NEXCOM”) and the Army and Air Force Exchange Service

297 F.Supp.2d 680 (2004) ESTATE OF Brian Patrick MORRIS, by Janine Morris, Administratrix, Plaintiff, v. Bart DAPOLITO, individually, Paul M. Siragusa, individually, Michael V. Yazurlo, individually, Douglas Reich, individually, Anthony Buonocore, individually, Sheree Raho, individually, Patrick Gallo, individually, Frank Coleman, individually, Richard Maurer, individually, Sal Rossi, individually, Thomas Gannalo, individually, Robert Mannis, ind

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT WILLIAM ANTHONY SMITH, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case

LDECUIR, Judge. The plaintiff-appellant appeals the judgment of the trial court which dismissed her suit on the ground of prescription. For the reasons ascribed herein, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the instant action. On April 18, 2005, the plaintiff filed her Petition to Contest Election Results challenging the election of April 2, 2005, for the position of District A City Council for the City o

ORDER Upon consideration of the appellant’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion to dismiss is granted. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

583 S.E.2d 893 (2003) 261 Ga. App. 848 LANIER v. ANTHONY et al. No. A03A1186. Court of Appeals of Georgia. June 20, 2003. *894 Heyman & Sizemore, William B. Brown, Atlanta, Jacqueline Marcucci, Lambert & Reitman, E.R. Lambert, Madison, for appellant. Jody L. Anthony, pro se. Lander &a;

hDECUIR, Judge. This court, ex proprio motu, orders a remand of the instant appeal for the conducting of a hearing in order to prepare a proper record for this court’s review of the jurisdictional issue as to the timeliness of the appeal in this matter. On April 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed the above-captioned case contesting the election for the position of District A City Council for the City of

MICHEL, Circuit Judge. ORDER The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and to dismiss William F. Morris’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Morris opposes. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissed Morris’s appeal for failure to file a brief and failure to respond to the order to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for

*950ON MOTION CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge. ORDER The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to summarily affirm the March 13, 2000 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. William F. Morris opposes. On August 20, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed

683 F.Supp.2d 730 (2010) Brian CLEARY and Rita Burke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 09 C 1596. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. January 13, 2010. *732 Claire Eileen Gorman, Michael H. Moirano, Nisen &a;

500 F.Supp.2d 979 (2007) Jason ESPINOSA, Plaintiff, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 07 C 231. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. June 18, 2007. *980 Larry Daniel Drury, Larry D. Drury, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff. *981 George Carter L

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge. Brian Cleary and Rita Burke, representing three putative classes, have sued several tobacco companies and tobacco-related entities. They filed the case in state court in 1998. Defendant Lorillard Tobacco Co. removed it to this Court after plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on March 3, 2009. In their thi

214 Ga. App. 526 (1994) MORRIS et al. v. WILLIAMS et al. A94A1252. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided August 26, 1994. Robert H. McDonnell, for appellants. Anthony M. Thomasson, for appellees. BIRDSONG, Presiding Judge. Barney Morris and Daryl Washington sued Welton S. Williams in a shareholder's derivative action, alleging that

291 F.Supp.2d 3 (2003) Charlene BROWN, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Doris Kutsmeda, Marie Serrazina, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, Liggett Group, individually and as successor to Liggett & Myers, Inc.; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, individually and as successor by merger to the American Tobacco Company and its

*********** Upon review of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good grounds to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission affirms and adopts with minor modifications the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner. *********** The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of

PER CURIAM: This motion presents the question whether Rule 35(b) of this Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure permits a motion for review by the Court en banc following denial of review by a three-judge panel of a single-judge decision upon the merits of an appeal to this Court. We hold that it does. The relevant procedural facts can be stated briefly. On August 20, 1992, 3 Vet.App. 387, a single-judge