Cases

ACCEPTED 14-15-00695-cv FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 20-1495 MARGARET BENSON, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., Appellee-Defendant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Lance E. Walker, U.S. District Judge]

OPINION AND ORDER WHEELER, Judge. This bid protest involves the Government’s acquisition of hardware and software maintenance services for robotic tape library systems used by the Naval Oceanographic Office (“NAVO”) at Stennis Space Center, Mississippi. NAVO maintains large silo-type storage libraries of tape drives that can be accessed with robotic arms and communication devices. The maintenance se

OPINION AND ORDER HEWITT, Judge. This post-award bid protest action comes before the court on defendant’s and intervenor’s motions to dismiss, as well as the parties’ cross motions for judgment on the administrative record. Plaintiff, CHE Consulting, Inc. (CHE), protests the decision of Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization (DITCO) to issue orders pursuant to a Blanket Purchas

163 Cal.App.4th 831 (2008) JOSEPH CORONADO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COBBLESTONE VILLAGE COMMUNITY RENTALS, L.P., et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. F053239. Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District. June 4, 2008. *835 Oren & Oren, Inc., and Charles D. Oren for Plaintiff and Appellant. Prindle, Decker &am;

ORDER JOAN N. ERICKSEN, District Judge. In this case Defendant J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc. (JCC), a debt collector, called the cellular telephone of Plaintiff Christina Zortman, a consumer, and left a message that identified itself as a debt collector. Zortman loaned her phone to her children and they heard the message. Zortman maintains that JCC’s action violated the Fair Debt Collection Prac

OPINION SIMANDLE, Chief Judge: Contents I. INTRODUCTION.407 II. BACKGROUND.408 A. Factual Background.408 B. Procedural History .. .■_’..411 III.Discussion.412 IV. Defendants Motion to Decertify the Class. ^ h-4 to A. Standard of Review Applicable to Defendants’ Motion. f — i CO

Majority: SAUFLEY, C.J., and MEAD and GORMAN, JJ. Dissent: ALEXANDER and JABAR, JJ. SAUFLEY, C.J. [¶ 1] The appeal in this matter requires us to determine whether a private owner of land encumbered by a conservation easement may bring a lawsuit seeking the enforcement of the easement on other land that is not owned by that landowner and in which the landowner has no other legal inter

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 18-963C Filed: September 24, 2018 Redacted Version Issued for Publication: October 22, 20181 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** AMERICAN RELOCATION * CONNECTIONS, L.L.C., * Pre-Award Bid Protest; Cross-

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 11-3373 C HRISTOPHER L ANE, K RISTOPHER K RAS, and T IMMY L URZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. T ARRY W ILLIAMS, F OREST A SHBY, and S HAN JUMPER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

150 Cal.App.3d 123 (1983) 197 Cal. Rptr. 484 THE PEOPLE ex rel. GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, as Attorney General, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CHE, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Docket No. 28008. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One. December 23, 1983. *127 COUNSEL

OPINION SUE WALKER, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION A jury returned a verdict for Appellant Curtis Chesser, individually, and through his spouse and power of attorney, Ava Chesser, in his health care liability suit against Appellees LifeCare Management Services, L.L.C. (LMS) and LifeCare Hospitals of North Texas, L.P. d/b/a LifeCare Hospital of Fort Worth (Hospital). After applying the statut

ACCEPTED 05-14-01495-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 7/27/2015 12:00:00 AM

ACCEPTED 07-15-00083-CV SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS AMARILLO, TEXAS 9/9/2015 5:05:30 PM

ACCEPTED 03-17-00534-CV 21540047 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

Lenk, J. General Laws c. 151B, § 4, prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of gender. It also prohibits them from retaliating against employees for engaging in “protected activity,” i.e., activity undertaken “to protest or oppose statutorily prohibited discrimination” (citation omitted). See Thirkield v. Neary & Hunter

. ' fl03ii'I RATIFICATION OF OIL AND GAS LEASE . STAlEOFTEXAS § FILED IN § 1

ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV

JOHN P. MOORE, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment by the district court enforcing an arbitration award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-15. We conclude the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction; therefore, we remand with directions to dismiss. The present dispute began when Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

ACCEPTED 03-15-00348-CV 6616789 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS