Cases

Case: 22-1630 Document: 92 Page: 1 Filed: 03/27/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ HARRIS BRUMFIELD, TRUSTEE FOR ASCENT TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellant v. IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2022-1630 ______________________

Case: 22-1630 Document: 92 Page: 1 Filed: 03/27/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ HARRIS BRUMFIELD, TRUSTEE FOR ASCENT TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellant v. IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2022-1630 ______________________

MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge: Plaintiff United States Underwriters Insurance Company ("U.S. Underwriters") commenced the above-captioned action against Defendants ITG Development Group, LLC ("ITG"), and Fredrick Rath on April 8, 2016, seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify ITG, or compensate Rath for claims asserted in the state court action, Rath v. ITG Development Group, LLC<

ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Currently pending before the Court are the parties' various motions for summary judgment (D.I. 715, 735, 739, 746, 856) and Daubert motions (D.I. 718, 720, 730). The parties have fully briefed the issues. (D.I. 716, 719, 721, 731, 736, 740, 747, 841, 843, 850, 853, 854, 855, 858, 915, 918, 919, 925, 928, 929, 930). After full consideration of the briefing, the motions are resolved as follows.

Opinion After Trial (1) Allowing Claims-, (2) Determining Nondischargeable Debt; And (3) Denying Injunctive Relief Phillip J. Shefferly, United States Bankruptcy Judge Introduction Nagel Precision Inc. (“Nagel”) designs and manufactures machines used in the automotive and other industries. Nagel brought this adversary proceeding against two Chapter 11 debtors, one of

ORDER CHARLES R. PYLE, United States Magistrate Judge. This action arises from a shipment of 55 copper anodes that went missing. ASAR-CO alleges that in July 2011, ASARCO requested that Defendants CR England, Inc. (“CR”) and England Logistics (“EL”) arrange for transport of 55 copper anodes from ASARCO’s facility in Hayden, Arizona, to ASARCO’s facility in Amarillo, Texas (“the Shipment”). (First Amend

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Joan B. Gottschall, United States District Judge Before the court are cross motions-for partial summary judgment and a motion:to dismiss two antitrust counterclaims pleaded in the defendants’ amended answer. The motions for summary judgment primarily involve a contract formation dispute with an antecedent choice-of-law question. Finding that the United Nations Convention on Co

OPINION AND ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge In these consolidated cases, one of which was filed here and one of which was removed here from New York state court, Petitioner LGC USA Holdings (“LGC” or “Petitioner”) seeks to confirm the results of bitterly contested arbitration proceedings with its former partners in the international diamond business and related entities, Respondents Ju

ACCEPTED 03-14-00518-CV 6061835 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

ACCEPTED 14-14-00855-cv FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/18/2015 12:34:30 PM

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 600 U. S. Part 1 Pages 122–180 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 27, 2023 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requ

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 600 U. S. Part 1 Pages 122–180 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 27, 2023 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requ

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ELDON E. FALLON, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Background & Procedural History............................................659 II. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law .......................................660 A. Background: Gypsum & Drywall ........................................660<

ACCEPTED 01-15-00867-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 11/24/2015 10:18:56 AM

58 July 21, 2016 No. 50 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON Patricia PIAZZA, acting on behalf of Farley Piazza and Associates and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Martha Paz De Noboa Delgado, deceased, Respondent on Review, v. Bryan KELLIM, dba 99 Pawn & Guns,

389 F.Supp.2d 1080 (2005) Kevin REMMES, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC., a New York Corporation; Givaudan Flavors Corp., a Delaware corporation, formerly known as Givaudan, Inc. and Givaudan-Roure, a division of Roche Group; Flavors of North America, Inc., an Illinois corporation; Sensient Flavors, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, formerly known as Universal Flavors, Inc.; the Flavor & Extract Manufacturers Associatio

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Barnett, Judge: The case is before the court on cross-motions for partial summary judgment. Univar’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (“Def.’s PMSJ”), ECF No. 18; Confidential PL’s Opp’n to Univar’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. and Cross-Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (“Pl.’s Opp’n and XMSJ”), ECF No. 30. In this case, Plaintiff, United States, see

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUSTIN LYTLE and CHRISTINE No. 22-55744 MUSTHALER, D.C. No. Plaintiffs-Appellees, 5:19-cv-00835- v. FMO-SP NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES, INC. AND NUTRAMAX OPINION LABORATORIES VETERINARY SCIENCES, INC, Defendants

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUSTIN LYTLE and CHRISTINE No. 22-55744 MUSTHALER, D.C. No. Plaintiffs-Appellees, 5:19-cv-00835- v. FMO-SP NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES, ORDER AND INC. AND NUTRAMAX AMENDED LABORATORIES VETERINARY

Case: 20-1857 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 07/15/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ STUPP CORPORATION, A DIVISION OF STUPP BROS., INC., WELSPUN TUBULAR LLC USA, IPSCO TUBULARS, INC., MAVERICK TUBE CORPORATION, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee HYUNDAI STEEL COM