Cases

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 21-2035 In re: BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, a/k/a BSA; DELAWARE BSA, LLC, Debtors CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY, as successor to CCI Insurance Company, as successor to Insurance Company of North America and Indemnity Insurance Company of North America

FILED September 14, 2023 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ Nos. 23-1664, 23-1665, 23-1666, 23-1667, 23-1668, 23-1669, 23-1670, 23-1671, 23-1672, 23-1673, 23-1674, 23-1675, 23-1676, 23-1677, 23-1678 & 23-1780 ________________ In re: BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA and DELAWARE BSA LLC, Debtors LUJAN CLAIMANTS

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), entered November 25, 2013, as granted those branches of the respective motions of the defendant Boy Scouts of America and the defendant Hudson Valley Council Boy Scout Association which were for summary judgment dismissing the compl

ROGERS, C. J. The primary issue that we must resolve in this appeal is whether the trial court should have instructed the jury that the defendant, The Boy Scouts of America Corporation, 1 could not be held responsible for the sexual abuse of the plaintiff, John Doe,

Chief Justice Rogers **942 The motion of the defendant-appellant, filed October 21, 2016, for reconsideration en banc, having been presented to the court, it is hereby ordered denied. PALMER and VERTEFEUILLE, Js., did not participate in the discussion or decision of this motion. ZARELL

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘o

Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Doe v. Boy Scouts of America, 2014 IL App (2d) 130121 Appellate Court JANE DOE, as Mother and Next Friend of John Doe, a Minor, Caption Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA and BLACK- HAWK AREA COUNCIL OF BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees (Cha

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘o

Digitally signed by Reporter of Decisions Illinois Official Reports Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Boy Scouts of America’s (“BSA”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 83). For the reasons that follow, the motion shall be GRANTED. II. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs, former child Boy Scout troop me

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON ORDER Appellate case name: In re Boy Scouts of America and Sam Houston Area Council Boy Scouts of America Appellate case number: 01-14-00653-CV Trial court case number: 2013-02376 Trial court: 129th Judicial District Court of Harris County On August 6, 2014, relators, Boy

Pasquale, Gregg J., J. The plaintiff, Edwin L. Ham-merberg (“the plaintiff’), brings this action against Boy Scouts of America Corp., Mohegan Council, Inc. (“Mohegan”), and Boy Scouts of America (“Boy Scouts”) (collectively, “the defendants”) alleging that he was sexually abused by his scoutmaster, Lawrence Wiles (“Wiles”). Now before the court is the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, the defendan

BURDICK, Justice. This case comes to the Idaho Supreme Court as a certified question from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The underlying case arose out of the claims of several men who joined Boy Scout troops when they

Opinion issued October 14, 2014 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-14-00653-CV ——————————— IN RE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA AND SAM HOUSTON AREA COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, Relators Original Proceeding on Petiti

397 S.C. 247 (2011) 725 S.E.2d 476 Karen COLE, as Guardian ad litem for David C., Appellant, v. BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, Indian Waters Council, Pack 48, Faith Presbyterian Church and Jeff Wagner, Defendants, Of whom Jeff Wagner is, Respondent. David Cole and Karen Cole, Appellants v. Boy Scouts of America, Indian Waters Council, Pack 48, Faith Presbyterian Church and Jeff Wagner, Defendants, Of whom Jeff

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL JONATHAN GOODMAN, United States Magistrate Judge. This Cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production from Defendant Schmidt (DE 234). The Court held oral argument on July 14, 2011. The Court reviewed the motion and response, the discovery materials at issue submitted for in camera review, the post-hearing memoranda and accompa

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Dkt # s 6, 20. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. II. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are six adult men who were sexually abused by their scout leaders in

J. JONES, Justice. The Boy Scouts of America and the Ore-Ida Council, Inc., Boy Scouts of America (collectively the BSA) were granted a permissive interlocutory appeal to challenge the district court’s ruling that the claims asserted in this case by Ronald Morgan, John Doe I, and John Doe II (collectively the Does) are not barred by the statute of limitations. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-12-00801-CV IN RE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Ju