Cases

175 B.R. 98 (1994) In the Matter of the CELOTEX CORPORATION, et al., Debtors. The CELOTEX CORPORATION and Carey Canada, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. AIU INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 90-10016-8B1. Adv. No. 91-40. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. November 15, 1994. *99

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ANDREW W. LENTZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2022-0374-JTL ) SHAH MATHIAS, DEBRA MATHIAS, ) ROBERT CHOINIERE, BRYAN ELICKER, )

305 S.W.3d 36 (2009) John L. COBB, Jr., Appellant, v. STERN, MILLER & HIGDON, Appellee. No. 01-09-00112-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.). July 2, 2009. Rehearing Overruled September 4, 2009. *38 Christina K. Schovajsa, Robert L. Klawetter, Houston, TX, for Appellant. Daniel Farris Cro

OPINION AND ORDER WHEELER, Judge. This case arises from Plaintiff Marjorie Murtagh Cooke’s employment as Director of the Office of Marine Safety at the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) from 1997 to 2005. It comes to this Court after Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Government in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (“District Court”) on April 28, 2006, c

KEM THOMPSON FROST, Justice, concurring. The interests of litigants are best served when courts adopt and utilize measures that foster and enhance judicial economy. The Supreme Court of Texas has recognized the importance of taking this approach and has adopted such measures in summary judgment appeals, holding that appellate courts reviewing summary judgments may consider all summary-judgment grounds presen

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

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 10-2204 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., Defendants, Appellants. ________________________ Nos. 10-2207 & 10-2214 DEAN HARA, Plaintiff, Appellee/Cross-A

BOUDIN, Circuit Judge. These appeals present constitutional challenges to section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, which denies federal economic and other benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts and to surviving spouses from couples thus married. Rather than challenging the right of states to define marriage as they see fit, the appeals contest the right of Congress to undercut the

Marshall, C.J. Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with