Cases

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge: The question presented is the meaning of “export property” under the Domestic International Sales Corporation (“DISC”) program established by the Revenue Act of 1971, Pub.L. No. 92-178, 85 Stat. 497 (“the Act” or “the Revenue Act”). In a Memorandum Opinion entered on July 13, 1995, the United States Tax Court (David Laro, Judge

ISHEE, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Johnson Electric 1 sued Robinson Electric Supply 2 in the Forrest County Chancery Court for numerous claims, including breach of contract, fraud, and a variety of other torts. Johnson asserted that

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge. George W. Lehnen III, Stacey Lehnen, John E. Ferguson, and Judy Ferguson 1 appeal from the district court’s entry of summary judgment on General Electric’s claim for breach of a guaranty contract. The appellants argue that the district court

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2021-CA-01115-SCT McINNIS ELECTRIC COMPANY v. BRASFIELD & GORRIE, LLC, AND JAMES MAPP DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/13/2021 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. WINSTON L. KIDD TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: SHIRLEY PAYNE CYNTHIA ANN STEWART DENNIS L. HORN R. LANE DOSSETT RALPH B. GERMANY, JR.

—Peters, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme (Kahn, J.), entered September 22, 1994 in Albany County, which, inter alia, partially granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. On January 15, 1991, plaintiff Elton L. Bryant (hereinafter plaintiff), a pipe fitter/welder employed by third-party defendant, All-Systems Piping, Inc. (hereinafter All-Systems), was

641 F.Supp.2d 793 (2009) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SONOSITE, INC., Defendant. No. 08-cv-298-bbc. United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin. May 26, 2009. *798 Allen Arntsen, Jeffrey A. Simmons, Justin Edwin Gray, Foley & Lardner LLP, Madison, WI, Jennifer Sklenar, Howrey LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Matthew Wolf, Sa

568 F.Supp.2d 983 (2008) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GE Medical Systems (Norway) as, GE Yokogawa Medical Systems, Ltd., GE Medical Systems Global Technology Company, LLC, GE Medical Systems, Ultrasound & Primary Care Diagnostics LLC and GE Medical Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants, v. SONOSITE, INC., Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff. No. 07-cv-273-bbc. United States District Court, W.D.

Opinion issued October 16, 2014 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-10-01123-CV ——————————— ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC, Appellant V. MARCO MURILLO, Appellee

EN BANC OPINION JANE BLAND, Justice. This lawsuit arises from an electrical contact workplace accident that occurred on a tract of property in Dallas. After subcontractor work crews demolished and removed existing apartment complexes located on the property, it was slated for redevelopment. Marco Murillo, an AAA Demolition Company employee, sustained severe injuries when he attempted to disconnect a cable

(2007) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GE Medical Systems (Norway) as, GE Yokogawa Medical Systems, Ltd., GE Medical Systems Global Technology Company, LLC, GE Medical Systems, Ultrasound & Primary Care Diagnostics LLC and GE Medical Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants, v. SONOSITE, INC., Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff. No. 07-cv-00273-bbc. United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin.

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ Nos. 03-3828/03-3832 ___________ General Electric Capital Corporation, * * Appellant/Cross-Appellee, * * Appeals from the United v. * States District Court for

Spain, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). In reaching its decision that plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, the majority concludes that the statute was designed to prevent the type of accident which caused plaintiff Anthony Roberts’ injury. Inasmuch as we interpret Corey v Gorick Constr. Co. (271 AD2d 911) as warranting a contrary de

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2021-CA-00778-SCT 4-WAY ELECTRIC SERVICES, LLC v. HUNTCOLE, LLC, AND 4-WAY ELECTRIC CO., INC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/02/2021 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. RICHARD A. SMITH TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: CHARLES J. SWAYZE, JR. CHARLES J. SWAYZE, III CHRISTOPHER NICKLAUS BAILEY

218 F.Supp.2d 463 (2002) WE MEDIA INC., Plaintiff, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., National Broadcasting Company Holding, Inc., National Broadcasting Company, Inc., Cablevision Systems Corp., Rainbow Media Holdings, Inc., American Movie Classics Co., WE: Women's Entertainment, LLC, Defendants. No. 01 Civ. 0424(VM). United States District Court, S.D. New York. August 23, 2002.

1 1 NO. 13-212 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS 2 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 09/11/15 11:24:40 AM 3 ROBERTSON ELECTRIC, INC. ) IN THE KEITH DISTRICT E. HOTTLECOUR

1 1 NO. 13-212 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS 2 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 09/11/15 11:24:40 AM 3 ROBERTSON ELECTRIC, INC. ) IN THE KEITH DISTRICT E. HOTTLECOUR

FILED IN NO. 13-212 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 09/11/15 11:24:40 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk TAMI L. WOLE'F, C.S.R. PHONE: (830) 331-8286 NO. 13-212 ROBERTSON ELECTRIC, INC. ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT ) VS . ) 216TH JUD

BEAM, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. The district court correctly concluded that Mr. Canada’s deposition testimony consisted of general statements that established nothing more than plaintiffs “subjective sense that he answered questions correctly but did not receive credit for them.” Canada v. Union Elec. Co., No. 4:95CV2066, Mem. and Order at 12 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 31,1997). This was

The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner, now Chief Deputy Commissioner, William L. Haigh and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence; receive further evidence; or to amend the Opinion and Award. Pursuant to counsel for plaintiff's motion, the Full Commission awards a $500.00 attorney fee for the appeal, as set forth in

The undersigned have reviewed the Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence. However, upon reconsideration of the evidence, the undersigned reach the same facts and conclusions as those reached by the Deputy Commissioner. Neither party here requested the Full Commission to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives. The Full Commission, in their