Cases

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 16‐4234 DELORES HENRY, et al., Plaintiffs‐Appellants, v. MELODY HULETT, et al., Defendants‐Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 16‐4234 DELORES HENRY, et al., Plaintiffs‐Appellants, v. MELODY HULETT, et al., Defendants‐Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 16‐4234 DELORES HENRY, et al., Plaintiffs‐Appellants, v. MELODY HULETT, et al., Defendants‐Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court

726 Argued and submitted August 20, 2021, affirmed January 5, 2022 OREGON PSYCHIATRIC PARTNERS, LLP, an Oregon limited liability partnership, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kelley HENRY, RN, P.M.H.N.P., Defendant-Respondent. Lane County Circuit Court 15CV08506; A173017 504

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-1559 HENRY HORIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT & COLLECTION, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-1559 HENRY HORIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT & COLLECTION, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-1559 HENRY HORIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT & COLLECTION, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-20-00169-CV ___________________________ ROBERT H. HENRY; MARGARET GREEN HENRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF MARGARET GREEN HENRY TRUST U/W/O WILLIAM H. GREEN, JR., AND AS TRUSTEE OF MARGARET GREEN HENRY TRUST U/W/O ELIZABETH MORE GREEN; CLAYTON

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT HENRY MOORMANN,  Nos. 08-99035 Petitioner-Appellant, 12-15395 v.  D.C. No. 2:91-CV-01121- DORA B. SCHRIRO, Respondent-Appellee. ROS  OPINION Appeal from the United States District Co

GOULD, Circuit Judge: John Henry Casey appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition, insisting that a biased jury that was convened for a trial in an improper venue convicted' him after considering impermissible hearsay evidence, and after improper closing argument from the prosecutor, all in violation of the United States Constitution. We have jurisdiction pursuant

HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge: Section 8(c)(4) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”) 1 provides for scheduled benefits for specified periods of time for employees who- are permanently partially disabled from a work-related injury. In this case

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Joseph Paige served as an attorney for HUD for twenty years and was fired twice. The first discharge occurred in 1977, when HUD accused Paige of inadequate performance as Area Counsel for HUD’s Chicago Area Office. Because Paige occupied a Schedule A position in the excepted service, HUD believed that it could discharge him at will, and accordingly it

Opinion op the Court. Josiah Pitts, being deeply indebted to sundry'individuals, conveyed his estate intrust, to three trustees,, for the use of his creditors, requiring them to share, rateably in the disposition thereof. Sundry of them obtained judgments and pursued their executions, re1 gardless of the provisions of the deed. Among the rest, he was indebted to John H. Jones, and to give him an equal advantage with the others, as Jon

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition. Before DALY, KISOR, and FLINTOFT Appellate Military Judges _________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Jawan T. HALE Staff Sergeant (E-6), U.S. M

CENTRIX MANAGEMENT CO., LLC v. DONALD W. FOSBERG (SC 20927) Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins, Ecker, Alexander and Dannehy, Js. Syllabus Pursuant to statute (§ 42-150bb), when a consumer contract or lease includes a unilateral attorney’s fees provision benefiting the commercial party, a prevailing consumer is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, the size

No. 378 April 30, 2025 185 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Alan Lloyd KESSLER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, an Oregon municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 18CV43134; A173351 Shelley D. Russell, Judge. Argued and su

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-2957 CHRISTINE BOARDMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court fo

No. 378 April 30, 2025 185 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Alan Lloyd KESSLER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, an Oregon municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 18CV43134; A173351 Shelley D. Russell, Judge. Argued and su

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

Case: 23-1438 Document: 67 Page: 1 Filed: 10/02/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. WEBER, INC., TEXTOR, INC., WEBER FOOD TECHNOLOGY GMBH, FKA WEBER MASCHINENBAU GMBH BREIDENBACH, TEXTOR MASCHINENBAU GMBH, Defendants-Appellants ______________________