Cases

Rel: March 21, 2025 STATE OF ALABAMA -- JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT THE SUPREME COURT OCTOBER TERM, 2024-2025 SC-2024-0260 Phillip Williams and Debra Williams v. Air Liquide America Corporation, individually and as successor by merger of Big Three Industries, Inc., d/b/a Sanstorm; Big Three Industries, Inc.; Bowto, Inc.; ED Bullard Company; Butler & Company of Mobile, Inc.; Clemco Industries, Inc.; 3M Company, Inc.; Mobile Abrasives, Inc.; P

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 23a0256p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ IN RE: E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY C-8 │ PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATI

OPINION WRIGHT, Justice. This ease presents several issues regarding disqualification of legal counsel because of a violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.9(a) arising from a conflict of interest with a former client. These issues include who has standing to appeal a district court order granting a motion to disqualify, the legal standard for determining whether Rule 1.9(a) has been violated, and whether t

[Cite as 131 Miles, L.L.C. v. 3M&B, L.L.C., 2021-Ohio-3198.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 131 MILES, L.L.C., ET AL., : Plaintiffs, : No. 109558 v. : 3M&B, L.L.C., ET AL.,

GEE, Circuit Judge: This appeal draws before us a number of cases dismissed by various trial courts for want of subject matter jurisdiction. In each case, the plaintiff was a worker at Avondale Shipyards, Inc., located in Jefferson Parish, south of New Orleans, who claimed damages resulting from silicosis contracted while he worked

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON April 22, 2008 Session RODE OIL COMPANY, INC. AND LONG OUTDOOR ADVERTISING v. LAMAR ADVERTISING COMPANY (FORMERLY OUTDOOR COMMUNICATION, INC.) Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Madison County No. 51024 Franklin Murchison, Judge No. W2007-02017-COA-R3-CV - Filed Septem

Oliver, Presiding Judge: The appeals to reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, involve the proper dutiable value of certain Christmas-tree ornaments exported from Germany and imported at the port of San Francisco, Calif. The cases have been submitted for decision on a stipulation entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties, wherein it is agreed, in subs

298 F.Supp. 115 (1969) CLEMENTS AUTO COMPANY, dba Southern Minnesota Supply Company, SM Supply Company, a Wisconsin corporation, and SM Supply Company, a Minnesota corporation, Plaintiffs, v. The SERVICE BUREAU CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 3-68 Civ. 240. United States District Court D. Minnesota, Fourth Division. March 31, 1969. *116

259 F.Supp. 35 (1966) STATE OF MICHIGAN and all Related Cases Pending in the District of Minnesota, Fourth Division, Plaintiffs, v. MORTON SALT COMPANY et al., Defendants. Nos. 4-64-Civ. 423, 4-64-Civ. 422, 4-65-Civ. 1, 4-65-Civ. 197, 4-65-Civ. 388, 4-65-Civ. 398 to 4-65-Civ. 400, 4-65-Civ. 402, 4-66-Civ. 17, 4-66-Civ. 69, and 4-66-Civ. 138. United States District Court D. Minnesota, Fourth Division.</

ROBERT L. CARTER, District Judge: Plaintiff-appellee Thelma Billiar was employed by third-party defendant-appellant Mennen-Greatbatch Electronics (“Mennen”) as an assembler of electrodes for use in cardiac pacemakers. One step in the assembly process required plaintiff to prepare an electrical resin by mixing two liquid components manufactured by defendant-appellant Minnesota Mi

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 722 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 723 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE N

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-1107 ___________________________ John Doe, I, et al. Plaintiffs - Appellees v. BJC Health System, doing business as BJC Healthcare

LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J. ¶ 101. (concurring in part, dissenting in part). I concur with the majority's conclusions that Acuity violated the notice provisions of Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m) when it failed to provide notice of the availability of UIM coverage, and that the Stones' recovery for that violation is potentially set by the stipulation they entered into with Acuity. See major

LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J. ¶ 40. (dissenting). The majority concludes that American Family was required to notify the Rebernicks of the availability of Underinsured Motorists (UIM) coverage under their umbrella policy pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m). Majority op., ¶ 2.1 agree with this conclusion and join that portion of the opinion. ¶ 41. However, I disagree with the majority's determination that American Family p

12023 CO 3M In Re The People of the State of Colorado, Petitione

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 26a0026p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. DAVE YOST, Attorney General │ of Ohio,

The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado 2 East 14th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203 2023 CO 3M Supreme Court Case No. 22SA282 Original Proceeding Pursuant to C.A.R. 21 Arapahoe County District Court Case No. 20JV540 Honorable Don Toussaint, Judge In Re Petitioner: The People of the State of Colorado,

[Cite as Feagan v. Bethesda N. Hosp., 2024-Ohio-166.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO GLENN D. FEAGAN, ESQ., : APPEAL NO. C-230135 TRIAL NO. A-2202163 Appellant, : and : KAREN LINGO, et al.,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. .United States District Judge Battle Sports Science, LLC (“Battle Sports”) and Active Brands Company, LLC (“Active Brands”), both Nebraska limited liability companies with their principal places of business in Nebraska, bring this action against Shock Doctor, Inc. (“Shock Doctor”), a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in

Justice KAVANAUGH delivered the opinion of the Court. *991 In maritime tort cases, we act as a common-law court, subject to any controlling statutes enacted by Congress. See Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker ,