Cases

KEATY, Judge. I,Defendants appeal the judgment of the trial court rescinding the sale of immovable property on the basis of lesion beyond moiety. For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse. ISSUE This case presents the question of whether Louisiana law allows for the inclusion of the speculative value of mineral interests or rights in and to immovable property in determining the

573 F.Supp.2d 425 (2008) Melvin KING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OF the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, and Peter Chan, in his official capacity as Regional Manager of the Office for Civil Rights, Defendants. Civil Action No. 07-10861-PBS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. August 26, 2008.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge SHEDD wrote the opinion, in which Judge GREGORY and Judge KEENAN joined. SHEDD, Circuit Judge: Dr. Armand Santoro appeals the district court’s order granting the motion by Accenture Federal Services, LLC (Accenture) to compel arbitration. Because we agree with the district court that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform

SULLIVAN, Judge. It Employer appeals a judgment which denies its La.R.S. 23:1208.1 and 23:1208 defenses and awards Claimant relief he sought in this workers’ compensation matter. For the following reasons, the judgment is affirmed, and Claimant is awarded additional attorney fees for work performed on this appeal. Facts Chester Armand was injured on March 14, 2007, while

850 F.Supp. 503 (1994) Gene KING, et al. v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS, et al. Civ. A. No. 91-2051-M. United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division. April 29, 1994. *504 J. Michael Hart, Theus Grisham Davis & Leigh, Monroe, LA, for plaintiffs Gene King, dba AGM Miniature Roses Inc. and Melanie King. W. Mic

OPINION OF THE COURT Saxe, J. Over the years, the intersection of animals, people and the law has spawned a tort recovery doctrine known as the rule of vicious propensity (see, Benoit v Troy & Lansingburgh R. R. Co., 154 NY 223, 225; Brown v Willard, 303 NY 727). Under this rule, a person who is bitten, clawed, pecked, scratched, or mauled by a domestic animal could obtain monetary recov

OPINION OF THE COURT LOUIS H. POLLAK, District Judge. This is an appeal from a decision of the Benefits Review Board of the Department of Labor dated April 12, 1984, affirming a decision of an administrative law judge denying benefits to petitioner under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901 et seq. and 945 (1982). Petitioner challenges the de

KING, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs-Appellants Helen and Robert Allen filed a personal injury suit against Defendants for alleged workplace injuries to Helen Allen. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the suit should be barred by judicial estoppel because the Allens failed to disclose the personal injury claim during their concurrent Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedin

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2017-KA-01082-COA SEDRICK BUCHANAN AND ARMAND JONES APPELLANTS A/K/A ARMOND JONES A/K/A A.J. JONES v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/15/2017 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W. ASHLEY HINES COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED LE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2017-CT-01082-SCT SEDRICK BUCHANAN AND ARMAND JONES a/k/a ARMOND JONES a/k/a A.J. JONES v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/15/2017 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W. ASHLEY HINES COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LEFLORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: DAVID P. VOI

MEMORANDUM *** Frank C. Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s decision in a social security case de novo. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.2005).

MEMORANDUM *** Frank C. Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s decision in a social security case de novo. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.2005).

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge DIAZ wrote the opinion, in which Judge MOTZ and Judge KING joined. OPINION DIAZ, Circuit Judge: Virginia inmate Ophelia Azriel De’lonta (born Michael A. Stokes) filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that prison officials denied her adequate medical treat

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge MOTZ wrote the opinion, in which Judge WILKINS and Judge KING joined. OPINION DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge: This appeal involves the proper resolution of certain timeliness questions in the arbitration context. The district court correctly found that it had jurisdiction to decide the timeliness of an action to compel arbitration unde

NO. 07-05-0062-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL D MARCH 31, 2005 ______________________________ ARMAND BIGLARI AND BIGLARI & ASSOCIATES, APPELL

*747 OPINION OF THE COURT VAN DUSEN, Senior Circuit Judge. This case requires us to consider whether the district court abused its discretion by issuing, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), an order enjoining appellant from filing any further petitions, pleadings or documents whatsoev

*359 KING, Chief Judge: African-American citizens of Mississippi, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (“the Private Plaintiffs” or “the Private-Plaintiff class”), filed this class-action lawsuit in 1975, seeking to compel the desegregation of Mississippi’s system of higher education.

522 F.Supp.2d 524 (2007) Michael ABBATIELLO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Solutia, Inc. and Pharmacia Corporation, Defendants. Alan Abele, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Monsanto Company, Solutia, Inc. and Pharmacia Corporation, Defendants. Armand Corlew, Vincent Riggi, Stephen Cernak, Jr., and Ruth Depaolo, individually and on behalf of a class similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. General Electric Company, Monsanto Comp

*1189 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND..........................................................1190 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW................................................1192 III. DISCUSSION............................................................1193

STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. This case involves a service mark dispute between two banks competing in east-central Kansas. First Savings Bank, F.S.B., (“First Savings”) sued First Bank System, Inc., and its member institution, First Bank, F.S.B., for service mark infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act and Kansas state and comm