Cases

Jeff Bohm, United States Bankruptcy Judge I. INTRODUCTION Danny Hanna ("the Debtor ") filed a Chapter 13 petition on January 23, 2017 ("the Petition Date ") [Main Case Doc. No. 1]. On May 9, 2017, DMM Group, Inc. ("DMM ") initiated the pending adversary proceeding against the Debtor [Adv. Doc. No. 1]. Prior to the Debtor'

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. PREFACE Today’s case involves a moderately complex business dispute, rich with issues. On one side is plaintiff K’s Merchandise Mart, Inc., which we call “Old K’s” (for reasons that will soon become dear). 1 On the other side is defendant Gordon Brothers Group, L.L.C., which w

MEMORANDUM JOAN N. FEENEY, Bankruptcy Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Mark G. DeGiacomo, the Chapter 7 Trustee (the “Trustee”) of Inofin Incorpo*25rated (“Inofín”) filed a Complaint against Raymond C. Green, Inc. (“RCG”) on April 25, 2011, one day before this Court conducted a hearing on RCG’s Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay and for

Memorandum Opinion on Trustee’s and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Shelley D. Rucker, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE I. Background Facts and Procedural History A. The Pleadings The Chapter 7 Trustee, James R. Paris, (“Plaintiff’ or “Trustee”), filed a complaint in this adversary proceeding on June 17, 2015.1 [Doc. No

Chief Justice HECHT delivered the opinion of the Court. In actions for unintentional torts, the common law has long restricted recovery of purely economic damages unaccompanied by injury to the plaintiff or his property 1 — a doctrine we have referred to as the economic loss rule.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RANDOLPH D. MOSS, United States District Judge This employment discrimination and retaliation ease is before the Court on Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Dkts. 37 & 38). Plaintiff is Brett F. Dyer—a Sous Chef who aspired to be an Executive Chef. Defendants are three national restaurant chains

Thomas B. Russell, Senior Judge United States District Court *384Currently pending before the Court are four motions by Plaintiffs and three motions by Defendant to exclude testimony of various witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ,

*92 Attorney-Client Privilege; Waiver; Federal Rule of Evidence 502; Clawback Order ORDER HORN, J. Defendant, the United States, has moved to substitute redacted pages for unredacted pages contained in a Joint Appendix filed on August 21, 2012, which correspo

DANA L. RASURE, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE TABLE OF CONTENTS I. JURISDICTION .. .800 II. FINDINGS OF FACT.. . 800 A. Background Leading to the Appointment of Trustee.. .801 B. Initial Trustee Period... 804 C. Challenge to the Legitimacy of Trustee... 807 1. Findings Supporting Denial of Motio

271 S.W.3d 178 (2008) Nickie DURAN v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC. et al. No. M2006-00282-COA-R3-CV Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville. October 13, 2006 Session. February 13, 2008. Order Denying the Petition for Rehearing February 27, 2008. Permission to Appeal Denied by Supreme Court August 25, 2008.

FILED IN st 1 COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TX 12/07/2015 NO. CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, CLERK IN THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS FOR TH

449 F.Supp.2d 992 (2006) Barbara SCHWAB et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Lorillard Tobacco Co., Ligget Group, Inc., American Tobacco Co., Altria Group, Inc., British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd., Defendants. No. 04-CV-1945(JBW). United States District Court

Chapter 11 MEMORANDUM OF OPINION, AFTER TRIAL ALLAN L. GROPPER, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE On January 12, 2009, Tronox Incorporated and 14 of its affiliates (the “Debtors”) *248filed for protection under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On November 30, 2010, they confirmed a First Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization (the

ACCEPTED 01-14-00906-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/20/2015 7:28:25 PM

ACCEPTED 01-12-00578-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS

ACCEPTED 05-15-01292-CV 05-15-01292-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS

Table of Contents Topic Page No. I. Introduction .........................................................1128 II.The Basic Requirements for a Deferred, Like-Kind Exchange Under Section 1031........................................................1130 III. The Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Other, Non-Party Players..............1139 A.

*1047MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LEE H. ROSENTHAL, District Judge. This is a consumer class action certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for settlement. The class is large — over one hundred million payment-card1 holders — and dispersed across the country. Despite a vigorous notice campaign, only eleven valid

What follows are the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Rule 52(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1) (made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052 ). For the reasons discussed below, judgment will be entered in favor of BMO and against Brahos on both of the bank's claims. Brahos's discharge will be denied. 1. Jurisdiction The court has subject

ACCEPTED 14-15-00991-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS