Cases

40 Cal.App.4th 1246 (1995) 47 Cal. Rptr.2d 692 CHARLOTTE BISS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ROBERT J. BOHR et al., Defendants and Respondents. Docket No. G015218. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three. December 7, 1995. *1248 COUNSEL Thomas W. Gillen for Plaintiff and Appell

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Senior Judge BUTZNER wrote the opinion, in which Justice POWELL and Judge WILKINS joined. OPINION BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge: John S. Clark Company appeals the judgment of the district court that dismissed its action on the ground of judicial estoppel. We believe that dismissal on this ba

I 1 WRIT NUMBER: WR-60-547-13 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN,TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL* FEB 23 2015 EX PARTE Alb8lAoos£a8CI@irk DANIEL JAMES SIXTA APPLICANT.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: This appeal arises from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding in which James Lehner and Suzanne Lehner, the putative owners of the debtor corporation, United Refuse, LLC (“United Refuse”), were directed to convey legal title of United Refuse to

57 F.Supp.2d 719 (1999) Paula Corbin JONES, Plaintiff, v. William Jefferson CLINTON and Danny Ferguson, Defendants. No. LR-C-94-290. United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division. July 29, 1999. *720 Donovan Campbell, Jr., Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke, Dallas, TX, Gregory S. Kitterman, Little Rock, AR, for p

WESLEY, Circuit Judge, concurring: I concur in the excellent reasoning of Judge Carney and her conclusion that Gatt lacks standing to bring federal or state antitrust claims and that its tort claims are without merit. I write separately because, although the anti-trust standing issue can serve as a basis for dismissal, I believe this is a paradigmatic case for dismissal under the doctrine of in pari delic

467 S.E.2d 786 (1996) Anthony V. LANASA v. Kathleen E. WILLEY. Record No. 951037. Supreme Court of Virginia. March 1, 1996. Joseph W. Kaestner (John B. Moriarty, Jr.; Kaestner & Pitney, on briefs), Richmond, for appellant. Steven S. Biss (Daniel A. Gecker; Maloney, Barr & Huennekens, on brief), Richmond, for appellee. Present: All the Justices.

SAUNDERS, Judge. |,This case is before us on appeal from three separate judgments against Finley Hilliard (hereafter “Appellant”) relative to his status as co-trustee of the Eleanor Pierce (Marshall) Stevens Living Trust (hereafter “the Trust”) and an application for supervisory writ relative to a denial of Appellant’s motion for new trial. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeals in part, affirm the 2013 judgment,

OPINION STOWERS, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION In 2010 the Alaska Judicial Council recommended that the electorate not retain a sitting district court judge. Susan Kruse and a handful of other voters 1 challenged the con

210 F.Supp.2d 755 (2002) Bert E. ARNLUND, John C. Cullather, Robert J. D'Amico, Donald H. Duncan, Gregory L. Freeman, Joseph Graziano and Daniel P. Mahoney, Plaintiffs. v. Lawrence N. SMITH, William C. DeRusha, Robert L. Burrus, Jr., Eugene P. Trani and Alexander Alexander, Defendants. No. CIV.A.3:01-CV-105. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia. Richmond Division. May 29

425 S.E.2d 504 (1993) SOVRAN BANK, N.A., et al. v. CREATIVE INDUSTRIES, INC., et al. Record No. 920300. Supreme Court of Virginia. January 8, 1993. *505 S. Miles Dumville, Richmond (Stephen C. Hall, Pamela G. Posey, Vernon E. Inge, Jr., Hazel & Thomas, on briefs), for appellants. Daniel A. Gecker, Richmond (Steven S. B

330 B.R. 176 (2005) UNITED REFUSE, LLC, Appellant, v. UNITED LEASING CORP., Appellee. No. 1:05CV438 (JCC). United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia. July 6, 2005. Steven Scott Biss, Richmond, VA, for Appellant. Tara Leigh Elgie, William Daniel Sullivan, LeClair Ryan, Alexandria, VA, for Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION CACHERIS

OPINION ERVIN, Chief Judge: William T. Humphrey filed a complaint against Prudential Securities Incorporated, Prudential-Bache Properties, Inc., and Richard W. Johnson, a Prudential agent, (collectively, the “Prudential Defendants”), alleging various violations of federal and state laws. Subsequently, Humphrey moved to compel arbitration and to stay his own federal action. The district court granted the moti

ACCEPTED 14-14-00706-cv FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/6/2015 11:22:02 PM C

Justice Lehrmann, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Time and time again, this Court has emphasized that statutes must be construed in context and that every word must be given effect. In this case, we read the specific provision at issue, which outlines the effect of a recorded order expunging a notice of lis pendens, in the context of the overall statutory sc

515 S.E.2d 120 (1999) 257 Va. 565 SHALIMAR DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Receiver for Heritage Savings Bank. Record No. 981365. Supreme Court of Virginia. April 16, 1999. *121 Steven S. Biss (Daniel A. Gecker; Maloney, Huennekens, Parks, Gecker & Parsons, on briefs), Richm

23-379 Costin v. Glens Falls Hospital, et al. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ____________________ August Term 2023 Argued: January 24, 2024 Decided: June 12, 2024 No. 23-379

298 F.Supp.2d 725 (2003) BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF GREATER CHICAGO, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, Defendant. No. 96 C 1122. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. December 29, 2003. *726 Timothy R. Conway, John S. Mrowiec, Edward B. Keidan, Conway & Mrowiec, Chicago, IL, for pla

221 B.R. 176 (1998) JGB INDUSTRIES, INC., t/a Baker Equipment Engineering Co. and Baker Equipment Leasing Co., Appellant, v. SIMON-TELELECT, INC., Appellee. No. Civ.A. 3:97CV450. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. May 26, 1998. *177 Patricia Hobbs Knapp, Steven Scott Biss, Daniel Allen Gecker, Maloney

DECISION AND ORDER. VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge. By Complaint dated March 28, 2014 (the “Complaint”), plaintiff MF Global Holdings Ltd., as Plan Administrator (the “Plan Administrator”), filed this action against defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”). (Dkt. No. 1.) The Complaint alleges that PwC, in its role as outside auditor and accountant for MF Global Holdings Ltd. (“MF