Cases

377 B.R. 788 (2007) Juan A. PICO VIDAL, Appellant, v. Fernando RUIZ ALVARADO and Carmen M. Velez Ramos, Appellees. Civil No. 07-1655 (GAG), Bankruptcy No. 02-0743 (BKT). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. October 26, 2007. *789 *790 Katiria M. Perez Lopez, Dennis J. Cruz-Perez, Ponc

650 F.3d 350 (2011) Luisa PEREZ; Elvin Francisco Gonza Osovio, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation; Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellants, and Ray Barrientos; Maria Gomez; Juana Miguel; Gibran Moya Rivera; Gloria Paneto Castro; Shitwa Perez Lopez; Jose Antonio Santiag Lugo; Maritza Alcover

ESTADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL ESPECIAL CARMEN A. BAEZ APELACIÓN MEDINA Procedente del Tribunal de Primera SANTOS A. NIEVES Instancia, Sala CAEZ Superior de San Juan

ORDER ON PLAN H358 XAVIER RODRIGUEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This Order addresses Plaintiffs’ statutory and constitutional claims against Plan H358, enacted by the 83rd Texas Legislature in 2013. The following Plaintiffs assert claims against Plan H358: The Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force1 (limited to HD90), MALC,2 th

ORDER ON PLAN C235 XAVIER RODRIGUEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, on behalf of the panel Before Circuit Judge SMITH, Chief District Judge GARCIA, and District Judge RODRIGUEZ This Order addresses Plaintiffs’ statutory and constitutional claims against Plan C235, enacted by the 83rd Texas Legislature in 2013. The following Plaintiffs assert

ESTADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO TRIBUNAL GENERAL DE JUSTICIA TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL ESPECIAL ENEIDA ALICEA PÉREZ APELACIÓN DEMANDANTE(S)-APELANTE(S) procedente del Tribunal de Primera Instancia, KLAN202200761 Sala Superior de SAN

660 F.Supp.2d 157 (2009) Angel FEBUS-RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. Enrique QUESTELL-ALVARADO, et al., Defendants. Civil No. 06-1627(SEC). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. September 18, 2009. Opinion Denying Reconsideration October 2, 2009. *161 Frank D. Inserni-Milam, Frank D. Inserni Law Office,

OPINION AND ORDER JAY A. GARCIA-GREGORY, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Oriental Bank and Trust’s (“Oriental”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 30). For the reasons outlined below, summary judgment is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Background This claim arises as a result of the demise of Eurobank Puerto Rico. On April 30, 2010, the O

240 F.Supp.2d 136 (2003) Maritza Pubill RIVERA, Plaintiff(s), v. Zoe Laboy ALVARADO et als., Defendant(s). No. CIV. 97-2815(JAG). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. January 9, 2003. *138 Wilma E. Reveron-Collazo, San Juan, PR, for plaintiff. Max Perez-Preston, Hato Rey, PR, Judith Martinez-Fortier, San Juan, PR,

OPINION AND ORDER DANIEL R. DOMINGUEZ, District Judge. Pending before the Court are: (a) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support, Docket No. 50, (b) Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 100, (c) Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support, Docket No. 73, and

396 F.Supp.2d 90 (2005) Wilfredo Silva PEREZ, et al., Plaintiff, v. Yolanda ZAYAS, et al., Defendants. No. CIV 03-1744SECCVR. United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. October 3, 2005. *91 *92 *93 John F. Nevares, Esq., Miguel J. Ortega Nunez, Esq., San

People v Portillo-Perez (2025 NY Slip Op 05978) People v Portillo-Perez 2025 NY Slip Op 05978 Decided on October 29, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This o

KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, dissenting: If ever there was a case where a Jewell instruction was proper, this is surely it. This is a much stronger case than Jewell itself, or any of our other deliberate ignorance cases, because we have here what *831we almost never get — defendant’s admission that her suspicions were aroused and eventuall

352 F.Supp.2d 152 (2004) 1) Nelson RIVERA-TORRES 2) Maria Luisa Alejandro-Ortiz 3) Carmen Maria Aponte-Lopez 4) Wilson Aponte-Rosario 5) Victor Ayala 6) Alice I. Badillo-Bravo 7) Javier Bonilla-Cintron 8) Marcelino Burgos-Pabon 9) Carlos Colon-Burgos 10) Maria M. Coriano 11) Nilda Zenaida Cosme 12) Aracelis Cotto-Gonzalez 13) Ruysdael Davila-Rodriguez 14) Ana Diaz-Lopez 15) Maria I. Figueroa-Ramirez 16) Myrna Firpi-Solis 17) Marial. Garcia-Morales 18) Vi

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER GELPI, United States Magistrate Judge. INTRODUCTION The plaintiffs, residents and property owners at La Vega Ward in Barranquitas, Puerto Rico, filed a Complaint on March 2003, charging defendant Esso Standard Oil Company (Puerto Rico), Inc. (“Esso”) with violations to several federal

ACCEPTED 03-14-00737-CV 4701431 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

729 F.Supp. 1410 (1990) Jesus M. PEREZ BONILLA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MANN HOLLY SALES & SERVICE, INC., et al., Defendants. Civ. No. 89-0978(JP). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. January 2, 1990. Alvaro R. Calderón, Jr., Hato Rey, P.R., for plaintiffs. Harry G. Segarra Arroyo, Jiménez & Segarra, San Juan, P.R., for defendant Mann Holly S

BESOSA, District Judge. Before the Court are defendant Metropolitan Security Services, Inc. d/b/a Walden Security ("Walden")'s and plaintiffs Rafael López-Santos ("López") and Erasmo Domena-Ríos ("Domena") (collectively, "plaintiffs")'s cross-motions for summary judgment filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (" Rule 56"). (Docket Nos. 36 & 41.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Wal

709 F.Supp.2d 115 (2010) Carmen D. BURGOS-YANTÍN, et al., Plaintiffs v. Municipality of Juana DÍAZ, et al., Defendants. Civil No. 07-1146 (JA). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. March 31, 2010. *116 Jose R. Olmo-Rodriguez, Olmo & Rodriguez Matias, San Juan, PR, Octavio M. Rivera-Bujosa, Rivera Bujosa Law Office, M

BARBARA M. G. LYNN, CHIEF JUDGE *918The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation in this case. Plaintiffs filed objections, and the District Court has made a de novoreview of those portions of the proposed Findings and Recommendation to which objection was made. For the reasons explained herein, t