Cases

Memorandum Opinion DAVID STEWART CERCONE, District Judge. I. Introduction Plaintiff, AMCO Insurance Company (“AMCO”) filed this action as Subrogee of its insured Star Hotels, Inc. (“Star Hotels”), against Defendants, Emery & Associates, Inc. (“Emery”), Premier Hospitality Group-Kittanning, L.P. (“Premier”), General Hospitality, Inc. (“General”) and Kratsa Corpor

ACCEPTED 15-25-00001-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/23/2025 2:53 PM No. 15-25-00001-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

Filed 5/15/23 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE RREEF AMERICA REIT II CORP, YYYY, Plaintiff and Respondent, A163827 v. (San Francisco County SAMSARA INC., Super. Ct. No. CUD21668144) Defend

OPINION AND ORDER MELINDA HARMON, UNITED . STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The above referenced putative class action alleges violations of the following securities -fraud statutes through ■ Defendants’ scheme to optimize revenue in investment banking fees from UBS Securities LLC’s corporate client, Enron Corp. (“Enron”), at the expense and defrauding of UBS Financial Service’s brokerage retail clients, Lead Plaint

OPINION HORN, Judge. FINDINGS OF FACT This case involves a post-award bid protest brought by Metropolitan Van and Storage, Inc. (MVS). The case is before the court on the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record. On May 9, 2008, the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC) issued Request for Proposals [RFP] W81GYE-08-R-0006 (the solicitation)

516 F.Supp.2d 459 (2007) Thomas WARNICK and Maureen Warnick, Plaintiffs, v. The HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 05-2529. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. May 11, 2007. *460 *461 *462

OPINION OF THE COURT Chief Judge Kaye. We begin with a unanimous recognition of the importance of education in our democracy. The fundamental value of education is embedded in the Education Article of the New York State Constitution by this simple sentence: “The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of *902free common s

AMENDED1 MEMORANDUM OPINION IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT: (1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR (A) SUBORDINATION UNDER SECTION 510 AND (B) RE-CHARACTERIZATION; BUT (2) TREATING CERTAIN PLAIN-TIFFSISELLER NOTEHOLDERS AS PARI PASSU WITH THE DEFENDANTS/NEW NOTEHOLDERS STACEY G. JERNIGAN, Bankruptcy Judge. “Equity is a roguish thing. For law we have a measure, know what to t

27 F.Supp.2d 754 (1998) N.W. ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF HOUSTON, Defendant. Civil Action No. H-97-0196. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. February 18, 1998. As Amended June 9, 1998. Opinion Supplementing Decision on Reconsideration, June 11, 1998.[*] Additional Sup

620 F.Supp. 1084 (1985) Knud I. LARSEN, Plaintiff, v. A.C. CARPENTER, INC., A.A. Carpenter, Inc., and Associacion De Productores Rurales Del Estado Aragua, Defendants. No. 81 CV 4129 (ERN). United States District Court, E.D. New York. October 15, 1985. *1085 *1086

131 Ill.2d 428 (1989) 546 N.E.2d 580 THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF CHICAGO et al., Appellees, v. A, C AND S, INC., et al., Appellants. Nos. 67576, 67585 cons. Supreme Court of Illinois. Opinion filed October 25, 1989. *429 *430 *431

323 F.Supp.2d 861 (2004) In re NATIONAL CENTURY FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC., INVESTMENT LITIGATION. Rebecca S. Parrett, Plaintiff, v. Bank One, N.A., et al., Defendants. City of Chandler, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Bank One, N.A., et al., Defendants. State of Arizona, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., et al., Defendants. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Credit S

557 F.Supp. 739 (1983) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY v. DAWSON CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., et al. C.A. No. 74-H-790. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. January 5, 1983. Nunc Pro Tunc Order January 5, 1983. *740 *741 *742

216 F.Supp. 709 (1962) UNITED STATES of America and Leila E. Pebles, Administratrix of the Estate of Frank R. Pebles, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America, Marjorie I. Matlock, and Mardale Matlock, by her Guardian ad Litem, Marjorie I. Matlock, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America, Catherine D. Noll

W.F. Gebhardt & Co., Inc. v. American European Insurance Co., No. 93, September Term, 2020. Opinion by Fader, C.J. INSURANCE POLICES — RULES OF CONSTRUCTION — CONTRACT PRINCIPLES Insurance policies are construed according to contract principles, construing the policy as a whole according to the objective theory of contract interpretation. INSURANCE POLICES — RULES OF CONSTRUCTION — AMBIGUITY — EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE A court may consider extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent if it determines

OPINION AND ORDER1 LETTOW, Judge. This is a post-award bid protest of a task-order contract for furnishing a barracks being built in Okinawa, Japan, for the U.S. Marine Corps (“Marine Corps” or “agency”). Among the items sought to be procured by the solicitation were 364 bed-units, comprised in part of “[mjetal pop-up beds with pneumatic rams or shock absorber[s].” The contrac

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Lynne Dowds and Brendan Lee, : Appellants : : v. : No. 566 C.D. 2019 : Submitted: January 17, 2020 Zoning Board of Adjustment, : City of Philadelphia, Xe Lua LLC, : Cecilia Moy Yep, Lai Lun Mark,

OPINION OF THE COURT AMBRO, Circuit Judge. The Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). In 2005 the Federal Trade Commission began bringing administrative actions under this provision against companies with allegedly deficient cybersecurity that failed to protect consumer dat

*1140 Opinion LIU, J. These two cases ask whether employers or landowners owe a duty of care to prevent secondary exposure to asbestos. Such exposure, sometimes called domestic or take-home exposure, occurs when a worker who is direct

366 S.C. 450 (2005) 622 S.E.2d 577 John BASS, Jr., Employee, Respondent, v. KENCO GROUP, Employer, and Zurich American Insurance Company, Carrier, Appellants. No. 4046. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Heard November 8, 2005. Decided November 21, 2005. *455 Darryl D. Smalls, of Columbia