Cases

OPINION AND ORDER SEIBEL, District Judge. Before the Court are several Motions to Dismiss, including one Joint Motion filed by all Defendants and several additional Motions filed by individual Defendants. (Docs. 90, 93.)1 For the reasons set forth below, the Joint Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the individual Motions are DENIED AS MOOT. I. BACKGROUND<

RILEY, Judge. STATEMENT OF THE CASE [1] Appellant-Plaintiff, Skyline Roofing & Sheet Metal Company, Inc. (Skyline), appeals the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Appellees-Defendants, Ziolkowski Construction, Inc. (Ziolkowski) and United Union Roofers Waterproofers and Allied Workers Local #26 (Local # 26)

(2008) MVM INC., Plaintiff, v. Marcial RODRIGUEZ, Defendant. Civil No. 07-2197 (FAB). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. July 28, 2008. OPINION AND ORDER BESOSA, District Judge. Various motions are currently pending before the Court. Initially, the Court directed the parties to brief it on the issue of whether a corporation may bri

ACCEPTED 04-14-00357-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 8/5/201

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE Stephen M. Wagner THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC. 23 NATIONAL AND NATIONAL Wagner Reese, LLP Gary A. Watt WOMEN'S GROUPS Carmel, Indiana Michael C. Osborne Jeffrey A. Musser Tiffany J. Gates Rocap Musser LLP ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Archer Norris, PLC Indianapol

555 S.W.2d 713 (1977) Robert C. MOORHEAD and wife, Elizabeth A. Moorhead, Appellants, v. J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC., Appellee. Supreme Court of Tennessee. September 19, 1977. *714 William D. Vines, III, Butler, Vines, Babb & Threadgill, Knoxville, for appellants. Dalton L. Townsend, Hodges, Doughty & Carson, Knoxville, for appellee.

Scanlan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant, Loyola Federal Savings and Loan Association appeals from a judgment entered against it in a civil action for fraud 1 which was tried without a jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. Plaintiffs in the suit, and appellees here, are Trench-craft, Inc., H. C. Ladd & Son, Inc., Automatic Equipment Sales o

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

JUSTICE KITTREDGE: This case stems from a contract dispute between the University of South Carolina and the university’s booster club known as the Gamecock Club (Petitioners) and several Gamecock Club members (Respondents). As part of the bargain Respondents struck with Petitioners, Respondents are entitled to “assigned reserved parking” at home football games. Respondents claim Petitioners violated this contract provision w

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 18‐3102 PETER DAZA, Plaintiff‐Appellant, v. STATE OF INDIANA, et al., Defendants‐Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Sout

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 18‐3102 PETER DAZA, Plaintiff‐Appellant, v. STATE OF INDIANA, et al., Defendants‐Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Sout

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 18‐3102 PETER DAZA, Plaintiff‐Appellant, v. STATE OF INDIANA, et al., Defendants‐Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Sout

22-313 United States v. Calk IN THE United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit ________ AUGUST TERM, 2022 ARGUED: MAY 17, 2023 DECIDED: NOVEMBER 28, 2023 No. 22-313 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case: 25-50367 Document: 69-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED February 10, 2026

OPINION BY MUNDY, J.: Appellant, Romeris Cadena, appeals from the October 1, 2012 order granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Appellee, James P. Latch, and dismissing all of Appellant’s claims with prejudice. After careful review, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history of this case as follows.

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2019 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

J-A18026-22 2022 PA Super 154 IN RE: TRUST B UNDER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF AGREEMENT OF RICHARD H. WELLS : PENNSYLVANIA DATED SEPTEMBER 28, 1956 : : : APPEAL OF: V.M.I. FOUNDATION, : INC. :

ORDER MARK H. COHEN, United States District Judge This case comes before the Court on Defendant First Prémier Bank’s Motión to Dismiss [Doc, 65] and Motion to Continue Certain Preliminary Deadlines [Doc. 66]. I. BACKGROUND On January 30, 2015, Plaintiff Lisa Flagg (“Plaintiff’), on behalf of herself and a prospective class, commenced this action against Defendant Fi

OPINION BY MUNDY, J.: Appellant, Betty L. Rourke, appeals from the March 21, 2012 order granting in part Appellee, Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company’s (Penn National), motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the May 21, 2014 order granting Penn National’s motion for summary judgment.

USCA11 Case: 20-12960 Date Filed: 11/23/2022 Page: 1 of 48 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-12960 ____________________ JAVIER GARCIA-BENGOCHEA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CARNIVAL CORPORATION, a foreig