Cases

131 F.3d 580w Richard C. BECHERER, et al., individually and on behalf ofall others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,J. Don Adams; Kay A. Arceneaux, as Executrix for the DonaldJ. Arceneaux, Sr. Estate; Edward R. Bassine; Anne T.Bassine; Thomas H. Blundell; Jan L. Blundell; James A.Campbell; Darrell R. Caudill; William A. Cherry;Catherine Crebbs, as General Partner of CCT & Co. asadministratrix of Estate of Rober

718 A.2d 1238 (1998) 315 N.J. Super. 467 Joel FRIEDMAN and Jihane Friedman, His Wife, Plaintiffs, v. Jay KLAZMER, D.O., Karen Scardigli, D.O., et al, Defendants Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County. Decided August 17, 1998. Andrew Napoli, Philadelphia, PA, and Robert Pollan, Marlton, for plaintiff (Haymond and Lundy, Philadelphia, PA).

The Alabama Medicaid Agency (Agency) terminated Mary Primo's eligibility for medicaid benefits in December 1988. She requested a fair hearing, which was held in March 1989. The hearing officer made a recommendation that the benefits be restored. The Commissioner of the Agency (Commissioner) did not concur with the hearing officer's recommendation. The Agency informed Primo of the nonconcurrence and entered an order terminating her Medicaid benefits. A requested rehearing was denied. P

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DAVID KRIEGER, ANDREW KRIEGER, JAMES FOR PUBLICATION SPERLING, and MARGARET SPERLING, on September 7, 2023 Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly 9:05 a.m. Si

193 F.3d 415 (6th Cir. 1999) RICHARD C. BECHERER, ET AL., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,J. DON ADAMS; KAY A. ARCENEAUX, AS EXECUTRIX FOR THE DONALD J. ARCENEAUX, SR. ESTATE; EDWARD R. BASSINE; ANNE T. BASSINE; THOMAS H. BLUNDELL; JAN L. BLUNDELL; JAMES A.CAMPBELL; DARRELL R. CAUDILL; WILLIAM A. CHERRY; CATHERINE CREBBS, AS GENERAL PARTNER OF CCT & CO. AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF ESTATE OF ROBERT W. CRE

DECISION AND ORDER VICTOR MARRERO, District Judge. *165TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................166 II. BACKGROUND.........................................................168 A. THE PARTIES......................................................1

487 F.Supp. 1078 (1980) David K. BULLOCH and Edith F. Bulloch, Plaintiffs, v. The UNITED STATES of America; Department of Health, Education and Welfare; Public Health Service; Frank Caprio, M.D.; The Department of Transportation; United States Coast Guard and Eugene Eichman, M.D., Defendants. Civ. No. 78-1305. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. March 27, 1980.

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Judge Moore’s concurring opinion sets out comprehensively the formulation and the development of the virtual representation theory. Judge Moore’s formulation, with which I agree, closely approximates the formulation of virtual representation as discussed in Wright, Miller, & Cooper: To justify preclusion by virtual representation on this broad view

ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV

ACCEPTED 15-25-00012-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 3:13 PM No. 15-25-00012-CV

251 F.Supp.2d 176 (2003) Senator Mitch McCONNELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. National Rifle Association of America, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Federal Election Commission, et al., Defendants. Emily Echols, a minor child, by and through her next friends, Tim and Windy Echols, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Federal Election Commission, et al., Defendants. Chamber of Commerce of the United