Cases

Case: 19-1749 Document: 87 Page: 1 Filed: 10/13/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ IMMUNEX CORPORATION, Appellant v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, GENZYME CORPORATION, REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Cross-Appellants ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, United States Magistrate Judge Plaintiff John Lofton (“Plaintiff’) brings this putative class action challenging Defendant Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC’s debt collection practices. Plaintiff alleges that Verizon engaged a third party, Collecto, Inc., to collect Verizon’s past due accounts as Verizon’s agent, and that in doin

OPINION ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS MICHAEL E. WILES, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Stillwater Liquidating LLC claims that the “Stillwater Funds” were defrauded in 2010 when their assets were transferred to the Gerova group of companies and then, a few months later, to the Net Five group of companies. Stillwater Liquidating seeks to recover the properties or their values. Some defendants are persons and entitie

ACCEPTED 03-15-00447-CV 8040945 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/1/2015 4:40:

ACCEPTED 03-15-00447-CV 7896313 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS SEE AMEND BRF AUSTIN, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM DECISION GRANTING MOTION FOR REMAND BASED ON MANDATORY ABSTENTION STUART M. BERNSTEIN, United States Bankruptcy Judge: The CORE Litigation Trust (“Trust”) brought this proceeding in the Superior Court of the. State of California for the County of Los Angeles (“California State Court”), as assignee of the Debtors’ pre-petition secured lenders, alleging that the Defendants induced a breach of con

CARL BARBIER, District Judge. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), the Court enters these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law relative to the Phase Two trial. If any finding is in truth a conclusion of law or any conclusion stated is in truth a finding of fact, it shall be deemed so, labels notwithstanding. CONTENTS I. Introduction and Procedural History.502

11 Essex St. Corp. v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y.??? Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., 11 Essex St. Corp. v??? 2017 NYS

Military Pay; Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record; 10 U.S.C. § 1201; 10 U.S.C. § 1216a; Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD); 38 C.F.R. Part 4; 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a. OPINION HORN, J. Plaintiff, Erie F. Adams, filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims claiming that he “has b

LOUitl OF CUMINAl J\7\>EI\LS t\us·-yr_l,L JEX/\S ·1~,} /l-,a.-a. t?

THEA~TORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS WILL WILSON A’CFORNEY GEXSERAL bag 30, 1958 Hon. $3111~ Stealcley Opinion No. WY-.440 Sectietary of State Capitol Station Re: Should the Zecretarg’ot S,tate Austin, Texas accept arid file Article8 of Incorporation In which the cor-

ACCEPTED 01-15-00210-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS

ACCEPTED 04-15-00557-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 9/4/2015 7:00:05

ACCEPTED 12-14-00220-CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 9/4/2015 3:01:53 PM