Cases

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA JACOB LAURENCE, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT & POWER DISTRICT, Defendant/Appellee. No. CV-21-0292-PR Filed April 28, 2023 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County T

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS BRANCHBURG HOSPITALITY LLC, TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY Plaintiff, DOCKET NO. 011494-2021 -v.- TOWNSHIP OF BRANCHBURG, Approved for Publication

MEMORANDUM ENTRY NOLAND, District Judge. I. Factual Background Central Foundry Division, General Motors Corporation (hereinafter “defendant”), is an industrial facility in Lawrence County, Indiana. Complaint, ¶ 2; Answer, ¶ 2. On April 15, 1988, the defendant hired Jungclaus-Campbell Company, Inc. (hereinafter “Company”) to provide all labor, equipment, mater

OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR., District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff EarthCam, Inc’s (“EarthCam”) Motion for Summary Judgment [232], Defendant Richard Hermann’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Hermann”) [230], Defendants OxBlue Corporation’s, Chandler McCormack’s, John Paulson’s, and Bryan Mattem’s (collectively, the “Oxblue Defendants”) Motion for Summary Jud

Opinion MANELLA, This case arises from a vehicular accident in which a freight liner driven by petitioners’ employee struck a vehicle, causing serious injuries to the passengers, real parties in interest Matthew John and Michael Lennig. The Lennigs brought negligence claims against the employee and petitioners and sought punitive damages. After admitting vic

964 N.E.2d 222 (2012) HUNT CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., and Mezzetta Construction, Inc., Appellants (Defendants below), v. Shannon D. GARRETT, Appellee (Plaintiff below). No. 49S02-1106-CT-365. Supreme Court of Indiana. March 22, 2012. *223 Mark D. Gerth, Steven E. Springer, Michael Wroblewski, Crystal G. Rowe, Indianapolis, IN, Att

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER MIKEL H. WILLIAMS, United States Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court are a Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 20) and Mo*1212tion to Strike Affidavit (Dkt. 43) filed by Plaintiff Nautilus Insurance Company (“Nautilus”).1 Having considered the record, including the briefs and affid

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RICHARD J. HOLWELL, District Judge: Plaintiff commenced this action on October 16, 2008, against defendants Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. (“Cushman”) and Joanne Podell, alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Ex

[Cite as Sammetinger v. Kirk Bros. Co., Inc., 2010-Ohio-1500.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT LOGAN COUNTY WILLIAM H. SAMMETINGER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. CASE NO. 8-09-15 BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, -and- OPINION KIRK BROS

ACCEPTED 12-11-00303-cv TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 3/13/2015 4:46:09 PM

Greenberg, J. Mark Johnson is the principal officer and shareholder of the plaintiff, Ray-Tek Services, Inc. (Ray-Tek), which sells and services equipment for medical providers and hospitals. Johnson learned that the York Hospital (York) in Maine wanted to purchase a new cardiac oath lab, an expensive *166piece of cardiac diagnostic equipment. Shimadzu, a cardiac oath lab

128 S.Ct. 761 (2008) STONERIDGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC, Petitioner, v. SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC., et al. No. 06-43. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 9, 2007. Decided January 15, 2008. *765 Stanley M. Grossman, New York, NY, for Petitioner. Stephen M. Shapiro, Washington, D.C., for Respondent

180 S.W.3d 761 (2005) TOSHIBA MACHINE CO., AMERICA, Appellant, v. SPM FLOW CONTROL, INC., Appellee. No. 2-03-156-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth. November 10, 2005. *767 Munsch, Hardt, Kopf & Harr, PC and Michael G. Foster, Dallas, Jackson Walker, LLP and Albon O. Head, and William R. Jenkins, Jr., Fort Worth, and D

88 Cal.Rptr.2d 19 (1999) 981 P.2d 944 21 Cal.4th 563 Thomas M. WHITE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ULTRAMAR, INC., Defendant and Appellant. No. S070177. Supreme Court of California. August 23, 1999. Rehearing Denied October 27, 1999. *20 Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather

ACCEPTED 01-14-00870-cv FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/8/2015 12:33:22 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

TOSHIBA V. SPM FLOW CONTROL COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-03-156-CV TOSHIBA MACHINE CO., AMERICA APPELLANT

</

McCONNELL, Circuit Judge. In this civil rights action, parents of eight pre-school children enrolled in the Head Start program in Tulsa, Oklahoma, complain that their children were subjected to intrusive physical examinations, including genital examinations and blood tests, on school premises without parental notice or consent. They claim that the Head Start agency, defendant

991 S.W.2d 518 (1999) WAL-MART STORES, INC., Appellant, v. Ruby ARD and J.C. Ard, Appellees. No. 09-97-361CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont. Submitted April 15, 1999. Decided June 10, 1999. Rehearing Overruled July 15, 1999. *519 J. Preston Wrotenbery, Magenheim, Bateman, Robinson, Wrotenbe

946 F.Supp. 531 (1996) HARI & ASSOCIATES, et al., v. RNBC, INC., et al. No. 2:95-0077. United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division. November 20, 1996. *532 *533 Joseph F. Edwards, O'Mara, Johnson, Edwards & Edwards, P.L.L.C., Cookeville, TN, for Hari & Assoc