Cases

Judgment rendered March 3, 2021. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 53,773-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA ***** ANDREW F. PAYNE

ORDER CLAY D. LAND, District Judge. Lewis Grizzard, a Southern humorist and legendary columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, observed that there’s a big difference between the words “naked” and “nekkid”: “ ‘naked’ means you don’t have your clothes on. ‘Nekkid’ means you don’t have your clothes on and you’re up to something.”1 In this case, Plaintiffs claim

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT M. DOW, JR., District Judge. Plaintiffs Rochell Mitchell and Audrey Veasley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brought this action against Defendants JCG Industries, Inc. (“JCG”) and Koch Meat Co., Inc. (“Koch”), as a putative class action for violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”),1 820 111. Comp. Stat. 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT M. DOW, JR., District Judge. Plaintiffs Rochell Mitchell and Audrey Veasley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brought this action against Defendants JCG Industries, Inc. (“JCG”) and Koch Meat Co., Inc. (“Koch”), as a putative class action for violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”), 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 105/1 et seq.

792 F.Supp.2d 1005 (2011) Rochell MITCHELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JCG INDUSTRIES and Koch Foods, Defendants. Case No. 10-CV-6847. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. May 31, 2011. *1006 Jac A. Cotiguala, Jac A. Cotiguala & Associates, Brian Massatt, Law Offices of Jac A. Cotiguala & Associates,

Case: 14-15621 Date Filed: 01/18/2017 Page: 1 of 47 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-15621 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:11-cr-80205-KAM-

SUMMARY ORDER Appellant Varrel E. Mitchell, pro se and incarcerated, appeals the judgment of the District Court granting the appellees’ motions for summary judgment and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, which alleged that the appellees violated his constitutional rights by unlawfully circulating information regarding his criminal conviction to inmates and employees at Coxsackie Correctional Facility, encouraging inmat

931 A.2d 265 (2007) 284 Conn. 903 Alfred E. MITCHELL et al. v. MEDICAL INTER-INSURANCE EXCHANGE. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Decided September 5, 2007. Brian W. Smith, Milford, in support of the petition. Andrew A. Cohen, New Haven and Alex J. Cuda, in opposition. The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court,

923 A.2d 790 (2007) 101 Conn.App. 721 Alfred E. MITCHELL et al. v. MEDICAL INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE. No. 27360. Appellate Court of Connecticut. Argued February 6, 2007. Decided June 19, 2007. *791 Brian W. Smith, Milford, for the appellant (defendant). Andrew A. Cohen, New Haven, wit

815 A.2d 620 (2003) Andrew M. MITCHELL, Appellant v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (STEVE'S PRINCE OF STEAKS), Appellee. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued January 29, 2001. Decided January 21, 2003. *621 Brian R. Steiner, Philadelphia, for Andrew M. Mitchell, Appellant. James A. Holzman, Harrisburg, Amber M. Kenge

734 A.2d 945 (1999) Andrew M. MITCHELL, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (STEVE'S PRINCE OF STEAKS), Respondent. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Argued May 20, 1999. Decided July 26, 1999. Brian R. Steiner, Philadelphia, for petitioner. Jeffrey A. Cohen, Philadelphia, for respondent. Before DOYLE, J., SMITH, J., and NARICK, Senior

Mitchell v Lam (2022 NY Slip Op 01929) Mitchell v Lam 2022 NY Slip Op 01929 Decided on March 18, 2022 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 43

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID G. DONOVAN, Hanford No. 22-35474 Security Police Officer; CODY ALMQUIST; KORA BALES; D.C. No. DOUGLAS ANDERSON; JESS 4:21-cv-05148- BEAN; JEFF AHLERS; CYRUS TOR ANDERSON; DANIEL BEAM; TAIN BALLANTYNE; CHRISTOPHER J. HALL, Hanford OPINION Security Police Officer; JARED BETKER; DAYNNA COFFEY ARDAMICA; THOMAS R. ARDAMICA, Safety Bases Compli

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 21-2798 _____________ XIAOXING XI; JOYCE XI; QI LI, Appellants v. FBI SPECIAL AGENT ANDREW HAUGEN; JOHN DOES; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL BUREAU OF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2019-KA-01724-SCT BRIAN R. TURNER a/k/a BRIAN RUSSELL TURNER a/k/a BRIAN TURNER v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/08/2019 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. KELLY LEE MIMS TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: RAYMOND G. O’NEAL, III KYLE DAVID ROBBINS JOHN DAVID WEDDLE

06/06/2018 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 14, 2018 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BRIAN C. FRELIX Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County No. I-CR047982-C Joseph A. Woodruff, Judge ___________________________________

2019 WI 42 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2017AP1408 COMPLETE TITLE: Security Finance, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Brian Kirsch, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

*1057 HOLMES, District Judge. Brian Thorvald Ulrich appeals the judgment of the district court 2 dismissing his case with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We affirm. I.

ANDREWS, Presiding Judge. After Barbara Forbes sued Cynthia Smith for personal injury damages arising from an automobile accident, the trial court dismissed the suit with prejudice on the basis that it was filed after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitation. Forbes appeals, and, for the following reasons, we affirm. Under OCGA § 9-3-33, ac

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-1764 DYLAN MITCHELL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EUGENE G. DOHERTY, GARY CARUANA, and WINNEBAGO COUNTY, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United S