Cases

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-01-00425-CR Craig Williams, Appellant v.

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-01-00425-CR Craig Williams, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 9014060, HONORABLE MICHAEL LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING Appellant Craig Williams app

SNITE, J., — In June 1996, Dr. Spiridon Spireas (“Spireas”) and Dr. Sanford Bolton (“Bolton”) submitted a patent application with the Unites States Patent and Trademark Office as inventors of processes and technologies relating to “liquisolid” technology. The patent was issued to Spireas and Bolton in October of 1998. Subsequent patents were issued to Spireas and Bolton which also involved liquisolid technology.

214 Mich. App. 1 (1995) 542 N.W.2d 279 MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Docket No. 165102. Michigan Court of Appeals. Submitted June 22, 1995, at Lansing. Decided October 13, 1995, at 9:00 A.M. Michael A. Holmes and Craig A. Anderson (James A. Ault, of Counsel), for Michigan Be

148 Ariz. 66 (1985) 712 P.2d 979 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF MARICOPA COUNTY, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Arizona, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert D. CONLIN and Debra K. Conlin, his wife; David A. Conlin, Jr., and Anne L. Conlin, his wife; Continental Service Corporation, an Arizona corporation as Trustee under Trust # 95936, Defendants-Appellees. No. 1 CA-CIV 7197.<

ZAHRA, J. Plaintiff, Kevin Krohn, who suffered an extremely severe spinal fracture that left him paraplegic, brought this suit under the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq. Plaintiff sought personal protection insurance benefits from defendant, Home-Owners Insurance Company, to cover costs incurred for a surgical procedure performed in Portugal. It is undisputed that this sur

WILKINS, Justice. 1 Merrill Cook and the Merrill Cook for Congress Committee (collectively "Cook") have asked us to determine whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that parties to a written agreement containing a provision requiring any modifications to be in writing, may, nevertheless, orally modify that agreement. Cook has also asked us to determine whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [# 8] AND CANCELLING HEARING GERSHWIN A. DRAIN, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss [# 8] filed by the Defendant, Hatch Stamping (“Defendant”). The matter is fully briefed and the Court finds that oral argument will not aid in the resolution of this matter. Accordingly, the Court will resolve the

514 F.Supp. 477 (1981) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Will PRICE, Jr., et al., Defendants. Civ. No. 80-73-A. United States District Court, S. D. Iowa, C. D. May 15, 1981. *478 Roxanne Barton Conlin, U. S. Atty., S. D. Iowa; Christopher Hagen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Des Moines, Iowa, Thomas R. Jones, Atty. Tax Division, Washi

ORDER JAMES E. GRITZNER, Chief Judge. This matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss or Stay by Defendants Terry Branstad, Kimberly Reynolds, Jeffrey Boeyink, Brenna Findley, Timothy Al-brecht, and Teresa Wahlert (collectively, Defendants). Plaintiff Christopher J. God-frey (Godfrey) resists. A hearing on the *979Motion was conducted

EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Choice of Law In this case, the parties dispute which state law applies to their claims. The plant *1024that discharged the water contaminated with ammonium perfluorooctanoate ("C-8") is in West Virginia. Some of the plaintiffs reside in Ohi

STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. Defendant appeals from an order of the district court dismissing this action without prejudice to subsequent refiling. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). Defendant argues on appeal that the dismissal should have been on the condition that any refiling of the action be in federal, not state, court. We affirm.1 Plaintiffs commenced an action

EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Clarification Regarding Dispositive Motions Order No. 1 ("DMO 1"), Class Membership and Causation ("Motion for Clarification") (ECF No. 2814), in which Defendant incorporated its Overview Brief on Causation Issues ("Overview on Causation") (ECF No. 2813), Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for

587 F.2d 893 78-2 USTC P 9497, 78-2 USTC P 9704, 78-2 USTC P 9787 BANKERS LIFE COMPANY, Appellee,v.UNITED STATES of America, Appellant.BANKERS LIFE COMPANY, Appellant,v.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Nos. 76-1787, 76-1840. United States Court of Appeals,Eighth Circuit. Submitted April 12, 1978.Decided June 12,

859 F.Supp. 1125 (1994) GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ACME BELT RECOATING, INC., et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Nos. 4:87-CV-364, 1:90-CV-397. United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division. August 12, 1994. *112

96 F.Supp.2d 892 (2000) Duane L. KNOPIK, Plaintiff, v. AMOCO CORPORATION; Mobil Corporation; Sinclair Oil Corporation; Unocal Corporation; Phillips Petroleum Company; Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc.; Braun Intertec Corporation, EnecoTech Midwest Inc.; and DPRA Incorporated, Defendants. No. 97-1134 (MJD/AJB). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. May 4, 2000.

557 N.W.2d 289 (1996) 453 Mich. 644 Gerald GRONCKI and Cheryl Groncki, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, a Michigan corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Barbara BOHNERT, Executrix of the Estate of Wendell Bohnert, Deceased Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, Carrington Homes, Inc., Roy Adkins and Ernestine Adkins, Defendants-Appellants. Theodore R. PARCHER, Jr., Yvonne M. Parc

WIGGINS, Justice. In 2013, the Iowa Board of Medicine passed a rule establishing standards of practice for .physicians who prescribe or administer abortion-inducing drugs. These standards require the physician to personally perform a physical examination and to be physically present when the abortion-inducing drug is provided. It is not disputed the rule would have the effect of

*412MEMORANDUM OPINION Robert E. Payne, Senior United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (ECF No. 91). For the reasons set forth below, the motions to certify both classes will be granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND A. Procedural Background</

336 B.R. 1 (2005) In re Nancy E. PATCHELL, Debtor. Nancy E. Patchell, Plaintiff, v. Option One Mortgage Corporation et al., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 02-45551-JBR. Adversary No. 04-04460. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts. July 8, 2005. *2 *3 *