Cases

JUDGE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court. This action was instituted in' the Pulaski Circuit Court by the appellant against appellee and W. F. Hansford, as partners under the style of Walter Elrod & Co., upon an account of goods and merchandise sold to that firm. Hansford made no defense. Appellee, Elrod, admitted the sale and delivery of the goods charged for to Hans-ford, and that they were used by

Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, United States District Judge This is one of two recent cases involving pre-trial detention at the Franklin County Regional Jail.1 The Plaintiff in this matter, Kelsey Love, gave birth alone and unassisted while in custody at the jail. The Defendants seek to resolve this case by way of a Motion to Dismiss. [R. 10.]2 This requires the Court to consider

ACCEPTED 15-25-00069-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 7/14/2025 3:16 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

JUSTICE RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Appellant Linda Payne (Payne) appeals the judgment of the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, which affirmed the holding of the Yellowstone County Justice Court, that Berry’s Auto, Inc. (Berry’s) disclaimed implied warranties for a used vehicle sold to Payne. Al

DeMOSS, Circuit Judge: Primrose Operating Company (“Primrose”) and CADA Operating, Inc. (“CADA”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed suit in Texas state court against National American Insurance Company (“NAICO”), seeking damages for an alleged breach of NAICO’s duty to defend Plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against them in Texas state court. NAICO removed to federal court based o

[Cite as Wolf-Sabatino v. Sabatino, 2014-Ohio-1252.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Linda Ann Wolf-Sabatino, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 12AP-1042 (C.P.C. No. 08DR-07-2610) v. :

Day, J. The facts clearly, and without even conflict, established by the testimony, are as follows: In the winter of 1865-6, the defendant and twenty-five others organized the Buffalo Creek Oil Company. In February, 1866, this company made a purchase from plaintiff of about half an acre of oil land, known as lot 13, for which they were to pay six thousand five hundred dollars. Fourteen hundred dollars were paid

By the court. The facts admitted will not bear an argument. The defendant was not an inhabitant of Westmoreland county before the 23d September 1780, and therefore does not come within the words or meaning of the act of 13th April 1782. Neither he nor the negro wore within the state at that timo. In a much stronger case on a habeas corpus in Washington county against Aberilla Blackmore, the court liberated two negro wom

665 N.W.2d 567 (2003) 266 Neb. 222 Lawrence PRIBIL, Appellant, v. Barton and Sandra KOINZAN, husband and wife, et al., Appellees. No. S-01-251. Supreme Court of Nebraska. July 3, 2003. *570 George H. Moyer, Jr., of Moyer, Moyer, Egley, Fullner & Warnemunde, Madison, for appellant. David J. Parts

SPATT, District Judge: The Plaintiff Robert Boston (the "Plaintiff") brought this civil rights action against the Defendants Suffolk County, New York (the "County" or "Suffolk"), Suffolk County Police Department (the "SCPD") (with the County, the "Suffolk Defendants"), Town Of Smithtown, New York (the "Town" or "Smithtown"), Town Of Smithtown Park Police ("TSPP") (with Smithtown, the "Smithtown Defendants"), Suffolk County Police O

978 P.2d 127 (1998) 194 Ariz. 150 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Billy Joe FLANNIGAN, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 97-0763. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department A. November 3, 1998. Reconsideration Denied December 4, 1998. Review Denied May 26, 1999. Grant Woods, Attorney General by Paul J. McMurdie,

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) 2 CA-CR 2001-0491 Appellee, ) DEPARTMENT B ) v. ) OPINION

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge: A large number of Costa Rican nationals sued several defendants in Texas state court. The plaintiffs alleged that a chemical manufactured and used by the defendants in Costa Rican banana plantations rendered them sterile. On October 24, 1990, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court in Houston. On November 27, 1990, the plaintiffs moved to remand the case to the st

1 Reported in 212 N.W. 175. In this action to recover the balance due upon a promissory note, there is no substantial dispute as to the facts and the findings of the court are full and complete. On June 3, 1919, defendant William E. Heagle contracted for the purchase of a farm adjoining the city of Marshall. On the same date he made a contract with defendants Brantman and Van Do

On Petition for Rehearing The petition for a rehearing filed by the defendant Lewis reargues at length the effect to be given the evidence in these cases. We gave full consideration to this matter before the original opinions filed herein were prepared. Our conclusion was that there was substantial evidence to support the finding of the trial court that a partnership existed between Lewis and Dinkelspeel, and a resurvey of the record i

932 F.2d 1518 60 USLW 2003 In re SHELL OIL COMPANY, Castle & Cooke, Inc., Dole FreshFruit Company, Standard Fruit Company, StandardFruit and Steamship Company, andOccidental ChemicalCorporation, Petitioners. No. 91-2040. United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. May 28, 1991.Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied

Campbell, J., delivered the opinion of the court. *643This was a proceeding by notice of motion instituted in the circuit court by the plaintiff in error against James Hale, Zed Hale and Elbert Pressley, trading as partners under the style and firm name of Hale & Pressley, to recover judgment upon an open account of merchandise sold the firm, amounti

906 A.2d 168 (2006) TRENWICK AMERICA LITIGATION TRUST, Plaintiff, v. ERNST & YOUNG, L.L.P.; PriceWaterhouseCoopers, L.L.C.; Baker & McKenzie L.L.P.; Milliman, Inc.; James F. Billett, Jr.; Stephen H. Binet; Anthony S. Brown; Richard E. Cole; Robert M. DeMichele; Neil Dunn; Paul Feldsher; Robert A. Giambo; Frank E. Grzelecki; Alan L. Hunte; P. Anthony Jacobs; James E. Roberts; Joseph D. Sargent; Frederick D. Watkins; And Stephen R. Wilcox,

104 Ariz. 574 (1969) 457 P.2d 251 TRI-STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Archie MAXWELL and Rose Maxwell, his wife, Appellees. No. 9656. Supreme Court of Arizona. In Banc. July 17, 1969. Gust, Rosenfeld & Divelbess, by Fred H. Rosenfeld, Phoenix, for appellant. Skousen, McLaws & Skousen, by Richard E. Skousen, Mesa, for app

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LEONARD DAVIS, District Judge. Before the Court are the parties’ post-trial motions. Having considered the parties’ written submissions and oral arguments, the Court: DENIES Samsung’s Renewed Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law that: (1) Samsung Does Not Infringe Any Claim of the Patents-in-Suit; (2) the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are Invalid; (3) Samsung is No