Cases

861 S.W.2d 108 (1993) 314 Ark. 181 William Mac HUFFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. No. CR93-280. Supreme Court of Arkansas. September 20, 1993. Charles M. Duell, Bentonville, for appellant. Teena L. White, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee. NEWBERN, Justice. William Mac Hufford was convicted of s

[Cite as Curcio v. Hufford, 2022-Ohio-4766.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY Joel Curcio, et al. Court of Appeals No. L-22-1009 Appellant Trial Court No. CI0202101522 v. Kathleen Hufford, et al. DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellees

12/12/2019 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs August 21, 2019 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KELLEY HUFFORD Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. 41301219 Mark J. Fishburn, Judge ___________________________________

47 Wn.2d 905 (1955) 290 P.2d 709 CHARLES HUFFORD et al., Appellants, v. GEORGE B. CICOVICH, Respondent. PACIFIC OUTFITTING COMPANY, Appellant, v. GEORGE B. CICOVICH, Respondent.[1] No. 33256. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two. November 25, 1955. Clarke, Clarke & Albertson and Daniel B. Trefet

49 Cal.2d 545 (1957) 319 P.2d 1033 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant, v. JESSE HUFFORD et al., Respondents. Docket No. Sac. 6844. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. December 31, 1957. *549 Robert H. Gerdes, F.H. Pearson, Charles T. Van Deusen, Carr & Kennedy and Malcolm A.

This action involves the ownership and right to the use of the waters of an irrigation ditch commonly known as the "Preadmore" or "Hufford" ditch, taking waters from Oak Run Creek in Shasta County. *Page 149 The ditch was constructed and the waters appropriated in the 1870's by one James A. Preadmore. His appropriation notice was for two thousand inches under a four-inch head. The ditch had its head in Oak Run Creek, on what is designated in the ev

16 Ill. App.2d 1 (1957) 147 N.E.2d 437 Loren Hufford, doing business under name and style of Brownsburg Canning Co., Appellee, v. National Retailer-Owned Grocers, Inc., a corporation, and Central Retailer-Owned Grocers, Inc., Defendants, Central Retailer-Owned Grocers, Inc., Appellant. Gen. No. 47,154. Illinois Appellate Court — First District, First Division. <

POLITZ, Circuit Judge: Kenneth Brooks, Homer L. Hicks, Ray C. Jackson, John B. Lewis, Jr., and Robert C. Terry were convicted after a bench trial in the Middle District of Louisiana of: (1) conspiracy to manufacture, possess with intent to distribute, and distribute phencyclidine (PCP), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; (2) the manufacture of PCP, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 84

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge. Appellants, Dale David Bruneau and Jeffrey Charles Kohner, appeal from their convictions of conspiracy to import marijuana into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 963. Appellant Bruneau also appeals his conviction of import *1192 ing marijuana in v

27 F.3d 12 Richard Ira ROMER; Jennifer Glatzer, as Custodian for AdamGlatzer, under the New York Uniform Gift to Minors Act;Anita Margulis; Sylvia Elan; Rae Kornreich; PeterCordaro; Bruce Paul; Diane A. Levy; Ruth Fretts,Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.GREEN POINT SAVINGS BANK; Innis O'Rourke, Jr.; Bernard S.Berman; Charles L. Neumeyer; Wilfred O. Uhl; Robert M.McLane; Dan F. Huebner; Robert P. Quinn; Robert F.

Re Document Nos.: 18, 24 MEMORANDUM OPINION •Denying Dependants’ Motion to Dismiss; and Finding as Moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Referral to Magistrate RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to the Contract Di

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SIM LAKE, District Judge. This action is brought against Uni-Pixel, Inc. (Uni-Pixel), Uni-Pixel’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and President, Reed Killion, and Uni-Pixel’s Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), Jeffrey W. Tomz, for alleged violations of §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5 promul

OPINION ROGERS, Circuit Judge. In this securities fraud action, the plaintiffs contend that BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. misled investors about Augment Bone Graft’s prospects for Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approval. According to the plaintiffs, the FDA privately *437

538 F.3d 272 (2008) David CHIN; Kevin L. Sullivan; Marvin Kirschenbaum; Bruce McCutcheon; Debra Dodge; Kevin L. Dodge; Howard Barkan; Bessie Coyne; George Higgins; Julie Szabos; Jim Coffey; Claude Meyer; Susan Robins; Al Zeidler; Fran Strykowski; Jeff Bradley; Jerry Green; Tony Sanchez; Kenneth E. Nealy; Craig M. Dinsmore; David *273 P. Yexley; Ed Mikoloajczyk; Martha Singleton; Calvin M. Singleton; Howard G. Saul; Sc

PER CURIAM. GRANTED. See Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Higgins, No. 1D07-0946, 975 So.2d 1169, 2008 WL 595923 (Fla. 1st DCA, March 6, 2008). BENTON, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ, concur. KAHN, J., DISSENTS.

CLASS ACTION MEMORANDUM OPINION ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, United States District Judge Before the Court are motions to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judg *214 ment, filed

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge: Plaintiffs Pennsylvania Chiropractic Association (PCA), Mark Barnard, D.C. (Bar*727nard), and Barry Wahner, D.C. (Wahner) have moved for an award of attorney’s fees and costs against defendant Independence Blue Cross1 (IBC) pursuant to 29 U.S.C

OPINION LIFLAND, District Judge. Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 23. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ have failed to meet the prerequisites for class certification under Fed. R.Civ.P. 23 and therefore the motion will be denied without prejudice. BACKGROUND Pla

[Cite as McCarthy v. Ketner, 2023-Ohio-4241.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY Jason McCarthy, et al. Court of Appeals No. WD-22-071 Appellants Trial Court No. 22-CVF-00814 v. Mark Ketner, DVM, et al. DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellees

CARLSON, Presiding Justice, dissenting: ¶ 25. Because I disagree with the majority’s application of equitable estoppel in this matter, I respectfully dissent. The one issue raised in the petition for writ of certiorari is whether the chancery court and the Court of Appeals erred in applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Specifically, the Long Meadow Defendants contend that the chancery court and Court of