Cases

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Carlos F. Lucero, Circuit Judge This case arises from a dispute over whether the federal government violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) when it approved leases and drilling permits for the mineral estate underlying the property of the trustee for the Paul B. Hayes Family Trust. The district court concluded that the Bureau of Indian Affa

SECOND AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER GREGORY K. FRIZZELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) is a process-oriented statute, *905requiring federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their actions. This case involves a dispute over the government’s obligations under NEPA with regard to i

CALLAHAN, Judge. {¶ 1} Appellant, Donald Younker, appeals the judgment of the Summit County Common Pleas Court. For the reasons set forth below, this Court reverses. I. {¶ 2} Appellee, Patty Hayes, owned four Personal Seat Licenses ("PSLs") at the Cleveland Browns Stadium. Ms. Hayes's PSLs reserved four seats on the 50-yard line, at the railin

JUSTICE GABRIEL delivered the Opinion of the Court. - T 1 In this opinion, we review the actions of the Title Board in' setting the titlé and the ballot title and submission clause for Initia tive 2015-2016 # 78 ("Initiative # 78"),1 12 We conclude that Initiative #78 contains one subject, namely, the manner in which recall elections are triggered and conducted

Justice MARQUEZ delivered the Opinion of the Court. 1 1 In this opinion, we review the actions of the title setting board ("Title Board") in setting the titles and ballot titles and submission clauses (collectively, "titles") in two groups of initiatives. These original proceedings are brought by registered electors of the State of Colorado pursuant to section 1-40-107(2), C.R.S. (2012). T

806 F.Supp.2d 141 (2011) J. Blair HAYES, Plaintiff, v. Kathleen SEBELIUS, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant. Case No. 1:08-cv-0150-RCL. United States District Court, District of Columbia. August 26, 2011. *143 David H. Shapiro, Ellen K. Renaud, Swick & Shapiro, P.C., Washington, DC, for Plaint

762 F.Supp.2d 90 (2011) J. Blair HAYES, Plaintiff, v. Kathleen SEBELIUS, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant. Case No. 1:08-cv-0150-RCL. United States District Court, District of Columbia. February 2, 2011. *93 David H. Shapiro, Ellen K. Renaud, Swick & Shapiro, P.C., Washington, DC, for Plainti

313 S.W.3d 645 (2010) Ronald Joe HAYES, et ux., Appellants, v. Trisha G. PRICE, Respondent. No. SC 90054. Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc. May 25, 2010. Rehearing Denied June 29, 2010. *648 David W. Ransin P.C., Springfield, for Appellants. John Mullen and Nikki Cannezzaro, Franke, Schultz & Mullen

SUMMARY ORDER IN CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs Elliott Associates, L.P. and Westgate International, L.P. appeal from the district court’s dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) of their claims alleging violations of (1) § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b); (2) Rule 10b-5 p

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-23-00556-CV Vanessa GARCIA, Appellant v. David HAYES, Appellee

PER CURIAM OPINION {¶ 1} This action in prohibition is presently before this court for consideration of the motion to dismiss of respondent, Magistrate Richard Badger of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. As the primary grounds for the motion, respondent submits that the petition of relator, David E. Feathers, is insufficient to state a viable claim for relief becaus

141 F.Supp.2d 344 (2000) ELLIOTT ASSOCIATES, L.P. and Westgate International, L.P., Plaintiffs, v. Dennis C. HAYES, Ronald Howard, S.P. Quek, M.C. Tam, Chiang Lam, P.K. Chan and Barbara Perrier Dreyer, Defendants. No. 00 CIV. 4483(SAS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. December 28, 2000. *345

288 S.W.3d 204 (2008) Albert HAYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. No. CR 08-300. Supreme Court of Arkansas. October 2, 2008. *205 The Cannon Law Firm, P.L.C., by: David R. Cannon, Little Rock, AR, for appellant. Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Eileen W. Harrison, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee. JIM GUN

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 496 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 497 OPINION This appeal presents issues arising from the expert report requiremen

10/02/2024 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 14, 2024 Session DAVID HAYES v. EXTREME EXCAVATION, LLC Appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County No. 41516 Suzanne Cook, Judge No. E2023-01435-COA-R3-CV A property ow

781 F.Supp.2d 1080 (2011) Kevin HAYES, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., and Wal-Mart Stores East L.P., Defendants. Civil No. 09-47-HA. United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division. February 17, 2011. *1083 Judy Danelle Snyder, Law Offices of Judy Snyder, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff. David G. Hosenpud, Lan

Dismiss and Opinion Filed August 28, 2024 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00805-CV BOBBIE SUE HAYES, Appellant V. DAVID LEE WALTERS, Appellee On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court Grayson County, Texa

OPINION Greg Neeley, Justice. David Hayes appeals an order directing the animal control officer with the Henderson County Sheriffs Office to humanely destroy three dogs pursuant to Chapter 822 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. In one issue, Hayes claims the trial court committed reversible error by

OPINION PATRICK A. PIRTLE, Justice. Appellant, Unit Petroleum Company, appeals a judgment in favor of Appel-lee, David Pond Well Service d/b/a D.W.P. Production, in its action for a declaratory *392 judgment related to the construction of two mineral leases: (1) an

CRAIN, J. |2The holder of a secured promissory note seeks recovery from a third party *1173who allegedly damaged the collateral for the note. The trial court denied a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants and -granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, awarding the full amount requested. We find that the secured party has no claim against the