Cases

432 F.Supp.2d 665 (2005) Christal BAILEY, et al., Plaintiffs v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION and Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems Company, Defendant. Civil Action No. 4:04CV124LN. United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division. August 26, 2005. *666 William E. Ready, Ready & Associates, Meridian, MS, C. M

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge. INTRODUCTION In this employment discrimination action, defendant moves for summary judgment on the one remaining claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion is Granted. STATEMENT Plainti

644 F.3d 1321 (2011) William SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, Anthony Mitten, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCKHEED-MARTIN CORPORATION, d.b.a. Lockheed-Martin Aeronautics Company, Defendant-Appellee. No. 09-15428. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. June 30, 2011. *1322 Daniel M. Klein, John Franklin Beasley, Jr., Edward D

[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITU.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUNE 30, 2011 No. 09-15428 JOHN LEY

HARRELL, J. We issued a writ of certiorari in this case, 393 Md. 160, 900 A.2d 206 (2006), to consider a matter of first impression in the reported opinions of the appellate courts of this State: what circumstances should be looked to in determining the point of *473accrual for a cause of action claiming discriminatory d

390 F.Supp.2d 1073 (2005) LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. The BOEING COMPANY, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Boeing Launch Services, Inc., William Erskine, Kenneth Branch, and Larry Satchell, Defendants. No. 6:03-cv-796-Orl-28KRS. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division. February 15, 2005. *1074

3 Cal.Rptr.3d 593 (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 592 Patricia BAKER-HOEY et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. No. E032995. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two. August 20, 2003. *594 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Robert S. Warren, Robert W. Loewen, I

MARCUS, Circuit Judge: This case raises the discrete question of the applicability of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine to claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) and alleging a conspiracy among corporate officers and the corporation itself to deter by force, intimidation, or threat, an individual from testifying in a court of the United States. These allegations plainly describe criminal conduct in violation

[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAR 08 2000 THOMAS K. KAHN

206 F.3d 1031 (11th Cir. 2000) Robert E. McANDREW, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant,v.LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Successor in Interest to Lockheed-Aeronautical Systems Company, a division of Lockheed Corporation, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee,J.A. Blackwell, Jr., T.A. Graham, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-8483. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Robert E. McANDREW, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Successor in Interest to Lockheed-Aeronautical Systems Company, a division of Lockheed Corporation, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee, J.A. Blackwell, Jr., T.A. Graham, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-8483. Unite

OPINION NUGENT, District Judge. Appellant Barbara Goad brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee against Appellees Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. (“Energy Systems”) and Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (“Met-Life”), seeking reinstatement of her long term disability (“LTD”) benefits under a plan regulated by the provisions of the

126 F.Supp.2d 502 (2000) Oliver S. MESSNER, Plaintiff, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. No. 3:99-cv-60. United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee. October 24, 2000. *503 *504 David A Burkhalter, II, Kirk J Angel, Burkhalter & Associates, Knoxville, TN, for plaintiff.<

USCA11 Case: 19-13513 Date Filed: 04/06/2021 Page: 1 of 35 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-13513 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-04440-WMR BATASKI BAILEY,

(2008) Gerald O. BAILEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHELL WESTERN E & P, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. H-05-1029. United States District Court, S.D. Texas. April 22, 2008. Opinion on Summary Judgment LYNN N. HUGHES, District Judge. 1. Introduction. Three plaintiffs accuse oil companies of purposefully mis

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1709 Doc: 49 Filed: 11/20/2024 Pg: 1 of 6 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1709 JAY FOLSE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. TIFFANY HOFFMAN, in her personal capacity; CHRISTIPHER COOK, in his

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT JOHN PRESTON BAILEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Pending before this Court are Defendant UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 735] and Defendant Honeywell’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 761], Both motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for decision. Defendants UTC Fire and Security Americ

*132KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, concurring: I join the Court’s thorough opinion and add one observation about the state of this Circuit’s law on dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As the Court correctly explains, when a district court grants a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a

Opinion filed July 13, 2023 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-21-00294-CV __________ LG CHEM, LTD., Appellant V. TASHIA HERNANDEZ, Appellee __________ -- and --

ORDER WILLIAM H. STEELE, Chief Judge. This matter comes before the Coui’t on “Plaintiffs Motion Pursuant to Rule 59(e) to Alter or Amend the Order Granting Summary Judgment to the Defendant as to Plaintiffs Count II” (doc. 70).1 On April 6, 2015, the undersigned entered an Order (doc. 65) that, inter alia, granted defendant’s Motion for Summary Jud