Cases

Hines, J. In this appeal, we consider an issue of first impression: whether an employer, in defense of a lawsuit alleging discrimination in employment filed by a union member, may demand communications between the union member and her union representatives or between union representatives acting in their official capacity. The issue arises on interlocutory review of a discovery disp

649 F.3d 1118 (2011) Michael LACEY; Jim Larkin; Phoenix New Times, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MARICOPA COUNTY, a public entity, Joseph Arpaio, Sheriff, and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; Dennis Wilenchik and Becky Bartness, husband and wife; John Does I-X; Jane Does I-X; Black Corporations, I-V; and White Partnerships, I-V, Defendants-Appellees. Michael Lacey; Jim Larkin; Phoenix New Times, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Joseph M. A

¶1 This construction defect case presents a single question regarding the Washington Limited Liability Company Act (LLCA), chapter 25.15 RCW: What is the meaning of “effective date of dissolution” in RCW 25.15.303? The parties agree that the answer to this question will determine if Clear Brook Construction Limited’s lawsuit against Belltown Waterproofing, LLC, is barred by the statute of limitations. We conclude that the effective date of dissolution is

178 P.3d 1059 (2008) SERRANO ON CALIFORNIA CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a Washington nonprofit corporation, Plaintiff, v. FIRST PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT, LTD., a Washington corporation; Queentech USA, Inc., a Washington corporation; Seas & Lakes, Inc., a Washington corporation, Defendants. Seas & Lakes, Inc., a Washington corporation; and Queentech USA, Inc., a Washington corporation, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. First Pacific

607 So.2d 974 (1992) STATE of Louisiana v. Robert ROSE. No. 91-KA-2151. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. October 29, 1992. Writ Denied February 11, 1993. *975 Frederick J. King, Jr., New Orleans, for appellant. Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Elizabeth Revere, Asst. Dist. Atty., New Orleans, fo

Chief Justice RABNER, concurring. By order dated September 8, 2010, the Presiding Judge for Administration of the Appellate Division, the Honorable Edwin H. Stern, was temporarily assigned to the Supreme Court until further order. As a result, he participated in the resolution of this matter and authored the majority opinion. Article VI, Section II, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constituti

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE JAMES T. HARRISON delivered the Opinion of the Court. These cases are consolidated appeals by the Unemployment Compensation Commission of the State of Montana, from judgments made and entered in district courts of the State of Montana, granting unemployment compensation benefits to the respondents. In each case the Unemployment Compenation Commission had denied such benefits and these orders w

Chadwick, J. This action was begun by Samuel J. Cameron and Zona Cameron, his wife, and Samuel J. Cameron as administrator of the estate of William Cameron, deceased, to recover all of that portion of section 21 in township 15, *385north of range 19 E., W. M., lying east of the Yakima river in Kittitas county. Samuel J. Cameron died after the trial, and the case is now pr

Tolman, J. The appellant, a hop grower and dealer doing business in the Puyallup valley, on July 28,1917, entered into a contract with one H. L. Hart by the terms of which he agreed to sell to Hart 22,000 pounds of hops then growing on the Query ranch, of which he was the lessee, at the price of twelve and one-half cents per pound. The last clause of the contract gave to appellant the right to deliver any part of the hops specif

Chadwick, J. On the 21st day of May, 1901, O. P. Burrows was the agent of the owner of certain lands in Chehalis county. Williams & Johnson were engaged as co-partners in the logging business, on the Humptulips river. By a previous arrangement Burrows had obtained permission to log the lands belonging to his principal. Burrows was not engaged in the logging business. In order to carry out his purpose and to turn his opportuni

Morris, J. -Respondent brought this action to recover damages for injuries sustained while employed in a shingle mill at Edgewood. The complaint alleged that the appellant *617was the owner of the mill and the master of respondent. The answer denied that appellant ivas the master of respondent, and alleged that, as owner of the mill, he had entered into a verbal contract w

Gose, J. This is a suit for divorce, consolidated with an action for the recovery of certain certificates of mining stock issued by the defendant corporation. There Avas a decree for the plaintiff in both actions. The defendant Marie T. Gibson has appealed, and the plaintiff, hereafter called cross-appellant, has taken a cross-appeal from that part of the decree awarding costs and attorney’s fees to the defendant Mrs. Gibson. The

Ritz, Judge: This is a suit to enjoin the collection of certain paving certificates issued by the defendant City of Huntington against a lot owned by the plaintiff in that city, covering the cost of paving in front of said lot, and to have the lien of said assessment removed and cancelled as^ a cloud upon his title, upon the ground that the paving did not benefit the lot, and that the contract for the paving was let by t

Mr. Justice Hall delivered the opinion of the court. On June 11, 1934, plaintiffs filed a bill of complaint in the superior court of Cook county against De Paul Educational Aid Society, De Paul University, First National Bank of Chicago, A. C. Allyn & Company and John C. Meiners, the last named individually and as chairman of a bondholders’ protective committee. Certain o

The Chancellor. At the time I directed an issue in this case, the decision of the High Court of Errors, in the case of Williams v. Crutcher, 5 How. Rep. 71, had not been made. When first looking into the papers of the case, although it appeared clear beyond doubt that the forthcoming. bond which the complainants seek to have declared void, was blank in its most essential parts, when it was signed, yet as I ha

Kyle, J. , Frank Ladner, as plaintiff, recovered a judgment in the Circuit Court of Pearl River County against E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, defendant, for the sum of $1,793; and from that judgment the defendant prosecutes this appeal. The declaration was filed by the plaintiff on July 25, 1952, against Magnolia Soy Products Company, a corporation domiciled at Greenville, Mississippi, and E. I. Du Po

Mr. Presiding Justice Baume delivered the opinion of the court. Appellees in this suit seek to recover from appellants under the provisions of section 42 of the Farm Drainage Act, such amount as the lands in appellant district and not in appellee district would have been assessed for benefits, if such lands had been in appellee district, by reason of the connection by the a

Hamer, J., dissenting. I regret that I feel obliged to dissent from the'majority opinion which, adhered to by the court’s present action, ■becomes Bohrer v. Davis, 94 Neb. 367. Mary M. Bohrer brought an action in the district court for G-reeley county against Mansell Davis and other defendants. There was a decree for the defendants, and the plaintiff appeals. The defendant Mansell Davis was the brothe

Dunbar, J. — The facts in this case are stipulated. The respondent, Minnie E. Kelly, plaintiff below, was formerly Minnie E. Tiller, and took title to the real estate in question in that name, December 8, 1897. The taxes for 1900, 1901, and 1903 were allowed to become delinquent. On July 28, 1904, a certificate of delinquency for the delinquent taxes of 1900 was issued to Hugo N. Kuhnhausen. On October 18, 1904, the holder of th

McCLELLAN, J. Detinue, for a mule, by subsequent purchasers (appellees) from mortgagor against the mortgagee (appellant). The mortgage was seasonably recorded in January, 1907. In May of that year the appellees purchased an animal from the mortgagor. The mortgage, among other chattels, contained the description of “1 sorrel mule colt Traveller.” The complaint describes the property sued for as “one bay horse mule.”