Cases

ACCEPTED 03-15-00085-CV 5176028 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

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

FILED 15-0547 7/24/2015 5:49:28 PM tex-6223072 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _____________________________________ ) AFRICARE, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 17-cv-1712 (RMC) ) XEROX COMPLETE DOCUMENT ) SOLUTIONS MA

ACCEPTED 06-15-00061-cv SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 10/26/2015 9:54:40 PM

MEMORANDUM CURTIS L. COLLIER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE For many years, the Tennessee 911 emergency telephone call system has served and continues to serve a very worthwhile public purpose. That system relies upon the collection of mandatory fees from subscribers to telephone land lines. However, as communication technology has advanced, the-telecommunications industiy has become much more sophisticated,

ACCEPTED 03-15-00528-CV 7458584 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

SILER, Circuit Judge: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought this civil enforcement action against defendants Big Apple Consulting USA, Inc. (Big Apple), MJMM Investments, LLC (MJMM), Marc Jablon (Jablon), and Mark C. Kaley (Kaley) (collectively, the defendants) for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), 15 U.S.C. § 77a et seq.,

ACCEPTED 13-14-00725-cv THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 7/23/2

986 So.2d 1093 (2007) EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION f/k/a Exxon Corporation v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES et al. 1031167. Supreme Court of Alabama. November 1, 2007. *1097 David R. Boyd and W. Joseph McCorkle, Jr., of Balch & Bingham, LLP, Montgomery; Sam C. Pointer, Jr., Samuel H. Franklin, and M. Chr

ACCEPTED 04-15-00118-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEAL

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1568 Doc: 29 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 1 of 28 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1568 CARMEN WANNAMAKER-AMOS, Plaintiff – Appellant v. PUREM NOVI, INC., f/k/a Eberspaecher North America, Inc., d/b/a Eberspaecher

818 F.Supp.2d 159 (2011) Judith BARNETT, Plaintiff v. PA CONSULTING GROUP, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 04-1245 (BJR). United States District Court, District of Columbia. October 14, 2011. *161 Douglas B. Huron, Richard A. Salzman, Heller, Huron, Chertkof, Lerner, Simon & Salzman, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. El

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge GREGORY wrote the opinion, in which Judge HARRIS and Senior Judge HAMILTON joined. GREGORY, Circuit Judge: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Cooperative Bank (“FDIC-R”), brought this civil action against the several officers and directors o

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties’ supplemental pleadings filed pursuant to the instruction of this Court after the remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, United States ex rel. Wilson v. Graham County Soil & Water Conservation District, et al., 399 Fed.Appx. 774 (4th Cir.201

EXELON CORPORATION, AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO UNICOM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent; EXELON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RespondentExelon Corp. v. Comm'r

Filed 5/18/16; part. pub. & mod. order 5/24/16 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE JOSEPH BAXTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, A142372, A142984, A143689 v. (Sonoma County MICHAEL BOCK et al.,

DECISION AND ORDER VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge. The Court has received motions in limine pertaining to the trial in the *566matter of MF Global Holdings Ltd., as Plan Administrator v. Pricewaterhouse-Coopers LLP. As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that several of the in limine motions the parties have brought reflect inapprop

610 F.3d 129 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. DELOITTE LLP, Appellee. Dow Chemical Company, Intervenor. No. 09-5171. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued February 26, 2010. Decided June 29, 2010. *132 Judith A. Hagley, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MARY M. LISI, Chief Judge. The United States of America (“Government”), on behalf of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), has filed a six-count complaint against Defendants alleging equity skimming in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 1715z-4a. The matter is now before the Court on the Government’s motion for summary judgment against Defendants Anto