Cases

KEARSE, Circuit Judge: In these two civil enforcement actions for securities fraud — brought, respectively* by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) against defendants Stephen Walsh and Paul Greenwood, et al., and consolidated by this Court for appeal — various entities that were defrauded by the defend

ROBERTO A. LANGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff Caleb Giddings, a Senior Airman in the United States Air Force Reserves, worked for GunUp Publishing, Inc. (GunUp) in South Dakota. When GunUp merged with Media Lodge, Inc. (Media Lodge) in the spring of 2015, Giddings accepted a job as Media Lodge's director of sales. Shortly thereafter, Giddings left to serve active duty for five-plus months with the Air Force. After returni

MOLLOY, Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION (December 22, 2014) BEFORE THE COURT is a motion filed by Plaintiff Lenore Der Weer, personal representative for the survivors and the estate of John Der Weer, requesting leave to amend the complaint to correct an inadequately pled survival claim. Defendants Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation and Amerada Hess Corporation — the only parties against

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALTERA CORPORATION & Nos. 16-70496 SUBSIDIARIES, 16-70497 Petitioner-Appellee, Tax Ct. Nos. v. 6253-12 9963-12 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Res

552 F.3d 430 (2008) TOTAL BENEFITS PLANNING AGENCY, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ANTHEM BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 07-4115. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued: July 30, 2008. Decided and Filed: December 22, 2008. *431 ARGUED: Richard B. Reiling, Law

121 F.Supp.2d 831 (2000) Wendy MILLER, Plaintiff, v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, et al., Defendants. No. Civ.A. AW-97-3973. United States District Court, D. Maryland. October 6, 2000. *832 *833 Michael A. Pretl, Severna Park, MD, Jodi Lyn Hammerman, Michelle A. Parfitt, Ashcraft and Gerel, B

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 08a0453p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X - TOTAL BENEFITS PLANNING AGENCY, INC.,

740 F.Supp.2d 148 (2010) UNITED STATES SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Elaine M. BROWN, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 09-1423 (GK). United States District Court, District of Columbia. September 27, 2010. *153 Arthur Samuel Lowry, U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

885 S.W.2d 603 (1994) MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant, v. NISHIKA LTD., Lentec Corporation, American 3D Ltd., and Nishika Manufacturing (H.K.) Ltd., Appellees. No. 09-93-126 CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont. Submitted May 10, 1994. Decided October 13, 1994. *609 Margaret C. Ling, Vi

648 F.Supp.2d 956 (2009) MP TOTALCARE SERVICES, INC. d/b/a CCS Medical, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Tricia Lynn MATTIMOE, et al, Defendants. Case No. 3:08CV885. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division. August 27, 2009. *959 W. Eric Baisden, Jeffrey J. Lauderdale, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Cleveland, OH, for Plaint

262 P.3d 874 (2011) Richard JACKSON; Mary Jackson; Thomas Fehringer; Deborah Hradecky; Robert Hradecky; Dean Lousberg; and Lousberg Partnership, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Petitioners. v. UNOCAL CORPORATION, Union Oil Company of California, and Unocal Pipeline Company, Respondents. No. 09SC668. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. October 31, 2011.

OPINION CONTI, Chief Judge. I. Introduction Pending before the court in this antitrust action is a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint filed by defendant Highmark, Inc. (“Highmark”) (ECF No. 288) and a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint filed by defendant UPMC (ECF No. 290). UPMC and High-mark argue, among other things, that the third amended complaint f

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 01-1693 UNITED PHOSPHORUS, LTD., an Indian corporation; SHROFF’S UNITED CHEMICALS, LTD., an Indian corporation; and J.C. MILLER & ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, an Illinois corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ANGUS CHEMICAL COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; ANGUS CHEMIE

MEMORANDUM OPINION ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, District Judge. INTRODUCTION These are antitrust cases between competing mobile wireless carriers. Before the Court are motions to dismiss lawsuits which Sprint and Cellular South brought to enjoin AT & T’s proposed acquisition of T-Mobile. AT & T and T-Mobile move for dism

121 S.W.3d 220 (2003) Larry HAMPTON, Respondent, v. BIG BOY STEEL ERECTION, Appellant, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Insurer, Treasurer Of The State Of Missouri, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Additional Party. No. SC 85456. Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc. December 9, 2003. *221 Bradley L. McChesney, St.

OPINION LASTER, Vice Chancellor. The defendants designated a corporation to serve as their expert witness. The plaintiffs objected, arguing that an expert witness must be a biological person. According to the plaintiffs, the distinction matters because a corporate expert witness could claim to rely on the

322 F.3d 942 UNITED PHOSPHORUS, LTD., an Indian corporation; Shroff's United Chemicals, Ltd., an Indian corporation; and J.C. Miller & Associates, Incorporated, an Illinois corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.ANGUS CHEMICAL COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; Angus Chemie GmbH, a German corporation; the Estate of Freeman Hughes through its representative Yvonne Hughes; Ollie W. Chandler; Lowell Pals; Gary W. Granzow; D.B. Gupta; and Lupin

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs Motion for Remand, filed July 24, 2013 (Doc. 10)(“Motion to Remand”). The Court held a hearing on November 14, 2013. The primary issues are: (i) whether Defendant Safeway Insurance Company has established that Plaintiff Betty Ullman’s claims exceed the jurisdictional minimum f

278 F.Supp.2d 619 (2003) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, and Environmental Defense; North Carolina Sierra Club; and North Carolina Public Interest Research Group Citizen Lobby/Education Fund, Intervenor-Plaintiffs, v. DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant and Counter-Claimant. No. CIV. 1:00CV01262. United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina. A

ACCEPTED 01-14-00880-cv FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 9/25/2015 3:28:27 PM