Cases

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge: Appellant Lonny Acker is a General Motors, L.L.C. (“GM”) employee who was approved for intermittent Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave but on several occasions was absent from work and did not follow company protocol for requesting FMLA leave. He suffered several weeks of disciplinary unpaid layoff. He sued GM for FMLA interference and retal

10/24/2018 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 18, 2018 Session DESTINE JOHNSON, ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Washington County No. 35028 John C. Rambo, Chancellor ____

981 A.2d 531 (2009) GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and Ford Motor Company, Defendants Below, Appellants, v. Roland Leo GRENIER, Sr., Plaintiff Below, Appellee. Nos. 453, 2007, 578, 2007. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: June 15, 2009. Decided: August 24, 2009. Reargument Denied September 15, 2009. *534

981 A.2d 524 (2009) GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and Ford Motor Company, Defendants Below, Appellants, v. Roland Leo GRENIER, Sr., Plaintiff Below, Appellee. Nos. 453, 2007, 578, 2007. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: October 29, 2008. Decided: February 4, 2009. *525 Christian J. Singewald, White & William

WELLS, Judge. Bull Motors, L.L.C., d/b/a Maroone Ford of Miami appeals from a permanent injunction mandating the inclusion of specific language in both its conditional financing transaction agreements involving a spot delivery, and in its notifications to purchasers whose initial financing applications have been rejected. We reverse the final injunctive order for two reasons, fi

ORDER PAUL S. DIAMOND, District Judge. Plaintiffs allege that Riley Brown, a three-year-old child, contracted Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and/or Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis — severe skin conditions— from her use of Children’s Motrin. Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendants, the producers of Children’s Motrin, for failure to warn consumers, failure to warn physicians, design defect, manufacturing de

PITMAN, J. | TDefendant, Orr Motors of Little Rock, Inc., d/b/a Sparks Nissan Kia Real Estate, LLC, appeals a judgment from the Monroe City Court awarding Plaintiff, Jefferey K. Stegall, back wages in the amount of $30,000, penalty wages for 90 days at his daily pay rate totaling $25,439, attorney fees in the amount of $15,000 and legal interest on all said amounts. For the following reasons, we amend the judgment to reduce th

ROBERT C. CHAMBERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Pending before the Court is Defendant Ford Motor Company's Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 1055. In its motion, Ford argues the Court should grant summary judgment in its favor for a number of reasons. Given the complexity of this litigation, the Court limits this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Plaintiffs' warranty and unjust enrichment claims. For the following reasons, the Cou

ORDER DANIEL P. JORDAN III, District Judge. This products-liability case is before the Court on the following motions filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company: Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Mark Sutherland [85]; Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Stan Smith [86]; Motion for Summary Judgment [89]; and Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Claim [91]. As set forth below, the Motion to Exc

622 F.Supp.2d 400 (2009) MHL TEK, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:08-CV-0125. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. March 31, 2009. *401 Samuel Franklin Baxter, McKool Smith, Marshall, TX, David C. Doyle, Eric M. Acker, M. Andrew Woodmansee, Richard C. K

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Ford Motor Company to Produce Documents Listed in its Supplemental ASO (Automotive Safety Office) Privilege Log and for Sanctions. (ECF *229No. 536).1 Defendant Ford

OPINION Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Ford Motor Company appeals - the trial court’s order denying its .motion to transfer venue from Dallas County to Collin County. In a single issue, Ford contends the trial court erred by denying its motion to transfer venue because Casey, Pear-lette, and Sjon Johnson failed to meet their burden to show Ford has a principal office in Dallas County. In

663 S.E.2d 779 (2008) JOHNSON v. GAPVT MOTORS, INC. et al. No. A08A0889. Court of Appeals of Georgia. June 18, 2008. *781 Kris K. Skaar, Marietta, for appellant. C. Davis Bauman, Clayton, for appellees. ELLINGTON, Judge. The State Court of Cobb County granted the motion for summary judgment filed by GAPVT Mot

OPINION ZIEGLER, Chief Judge. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Pending before the court is the motion of defendant, General Motors Corporation (hereafter General Motors or GM), for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur. The motion will be denied for the reasons that follow. In this diversity action in which Pennsylvania law is controlling, the jury found that Gene

495 S.E.2d 572 (1997) 229 Ga. App. 781 LITTLE et al. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION et al. (Two Cases). Nos. A97A1575, A97A1576. Court of Appeals of Georgia. November 7, 1997. Order Denying Reconsideration December 10, 1997. Certiorari Denied March 6, 1998. Barnes, Browning, Tanksley & Casurella, George T.

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0170p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ DENNIS SPEERLY; JOSEPH SIERCHIO; DARRIN │ DEGRAND; DANIEL DRAIN; WAVERS SMITH; RICHARD

576 S.E.2d 625 (2003) 259 Ga. App. 225 KAROLY et al. v. KAWASAKI MOTORS CORPORATION, U.S.A., et al. No. A02A1854. Court of Appeals of Georgia. January 15, 2003. Lawson, Davis, Pickren & Seydel, Paul R. Jordan, Atlanta, for appellants. Coleman & Dempsey, Robert P. Catlin III, Atlanta, Whelchel, Brown, Readdick & Bumgartner,

Filed 9/24/24 (unmodified opinion attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO LUIS VALDOVINOS, et al., B324418 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC633283) v. ORDER MODIFYING KIA

313 Ga. 811 FINAL COPY S21G1147. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC v. BUCHANAN et al. BETHEL, Justice. In a civil lawsuit in Georgia, the discovery process allows litigants to gather information about a case from other litigants and third parties in an orderly and defined manner. Georgia, like most states, also provides various mechanisms for litigants and third parties to seek relief from the demands of discovery. One such method is by moving for a protective order under OCGA § 9-11-26

Filed 8/29/24 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO LUIS VALDOVINOS et al., B324418 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC633283) v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., Defendant and Appellant. APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los A