Cases

'E~. C+. \Ao. \'b"c;£: ‘-\%zL¢?) ' \A\Q_'@?`),.¢gu»z-o\ 33 ,UU?» "O/ AWUU-\AQT\\I€ OE))€C;uor\\ MLO \0\¢\\\0&)\\& tip F\°(C,TS "Co g ‘STAT€§ QAS Co\>~()u> f 1 * @@URT C‘F'© \_~” AFPE::LS hr\\OuAc\ 0'@ facts AUQ 17 2015 `TAC’ cov£‘r OF CQ(M\AQL AW€¢=:\§ CoMclu\oc:> -rA€s€ MB\"”Y@@@ @?1©"@@"< klequ 081 pgc`:[§} ` G) \T 15 6 past “T»m'r oW¢¢€€, 3-]0:\\'65 T€§»T\(~`¢sg 'r+\f\'\’ +\€ pu\\to AWL\CW\\'* OVSP~ €J@ *~\0'§ 510??\¢0 ?)6&\\»`\0 “'m€ 510? S\ca»&, %m m

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2017-CA-00847-COA CHRISTOPHER PAUL VANDENBROOK APPELLANT v. CHARLOTTE EMMA (MCKINNEY) APPELLEE VANDENBROOK DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/03/2017 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. VICKI B. DANIELS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: DESOTO COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNE

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Milton I. Shadur, Senior United States District Judge 02COOL, LLC (“02COOL”) asserts that One World Technologies, Inc. and Techtronic Industries North America, Inc. (collectively “Techtronic”) have infringed patents related to its cooling and hydration products. Having reached an impasse as to the meaning of certain claim terms contained in two of those patents—U.S. Patent No.

Hon. Patti B. Saris, Chief United States District Judge TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...60 FINDINGS OF FACT...60 I. Scientific Background...60 A. The Immune System and Receptor-Ligand Signaling...60 B. Experimental Methods...63 II. Discover

In re Emma L. White; Ella Mae Ware; Jeff Ware; applying for reconsideration of order of this Court’s May 20, 1988 order; Second Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 19474-CA; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, No. 311983. Prior report: La., 525 So.2d 1058. Reconsideration denied.

In re White, Emma L.; Ware, Ella Mae; Ware, Jeff; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 19474-CA; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, No. 311983. Prior report: La.App., 524 So.2d 551. Denied.

Baker, Judge. [1] Romana Balderas appeals the post-conviction court's denial of her petition for post-conviction relief after Balderas pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit forgery, a Class C felony. Balderas argues that the laches defense does not apply to her case and that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance pursuant to Padilla v. Kentucky ,

200 F.3d 665 (10th Cir. 1999) JASON M. DAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.GARY D. MAYNARD, Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections; JAMES SAFFEL, Regional Director for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections; DAN REYNOLDS, Warden at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary; KEN KLINGER, Deputy Warden of Administrative Operations at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary; JOHN EAST, Unit Coordinator at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary; EDDIE MORGAN, Unit M

A jury rejected the medical negligence claims brought by the family of Enrique Gonzalez against McAllen Medical Center and Dr. Jose Igoa. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging the factual sufficiency of several jury findings. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals rejected these points in a memorandum opinion, concluding in a single sentence that the evidence was factually sufficient without stating any reason why. 2003 WL 21283132, (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER HAL J. BONNEY, Bankruptcy Judge. If ... she had read the raft of papers; they had had a customer-oriented system in operation. “Pity the Unicorn, Pity the Hippogriff, Souls that were never born Out of the land of If!” —Ostenso We might wish people didn

OPINION OF THE COURT Sullivan, J. This appeal presents the question of whether loss of enjoyment of life is an element of damages separate and distinct from conscious pain and suffering, and compensable even without the injured party’s cognitive awareness of his physical condition. The issues appear never to have been directly addressed by an appellate court of this State. Mindful but wary of the precedent w

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ALLEN SHARP, Chief Judge. This case is brought pursuant to section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the Secretary’s final decision denying plaintiff’s application for Supplemental Security Income. On July 30, 1984 plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment requesting that this case be (1) remanded for further proceedings on the ground that

Gants, C.J. The issue on appeal is whether a Superior Court judge committed an error of law or abused his discretion in denying a defendant’s motion to impound a video recording and transcript of a police interview with the defendant that was the subject of a motion to suppress and that was subsequently suppressed. We conclude that the judge applied the correct legal standard in de

Case: 23-1378 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 08/28/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ THOMAS SMITH, THROUGH THE REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS ESTATE, KAREN HICKS, Claimant-Appellant v. DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

Case: 23-1378 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 08/28/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ THOMAS SMITH, THROUGH THE REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS ESTATE, KAREN HICKS, Claimant-Appellant v. DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

574 S.W.2d 679 (1978) Albert C. PARTON, Administrator of the Estate of Robert Schindhelm, Appellant, v. Link ROBINSON, Hallie Robinson, Florence Deposit Bank, Covington Trust and Banking Company, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Loredo Estenfelder d/b/a Estenfelder Realty Company, and Emma Jurgens, Appellees. Court of Appeals of Kentucky. December 1, 1978.

Harris, J. On the trial of this proceeding there was presented to the jury for answer the following four questions, each of which questions was answered by the jury in the manner set forth after the statement of the question: 1. Was the said paper writing duly executed and published as the last will and testament of said Margaret Zimmerman, deceased, as required by law? Yes.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered May 19, 2005, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and denied as moot plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment as to liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, the complaint reinstated, the deni

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0060p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT GINA V. BURT, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ │