Cases

WILLIAMS, C.J. The plaintiff, Misty Price, on behalf of her minor daughter, Tamia Price, appeals a district court judgment granting partial summary judgment and a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, the Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund. The plaintiff also appeals the trial court's denial of her motion for a new trial. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS On Septemb

WILLIAMS, C.J. The plaintiff, Misty Price, on behalf of her minor daughter, Tamia Price, appeals a district court judgment granting partial summary judgment and a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, the Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund. The plaintiff also appeals the trial court's denial of her motion for a new trial. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS On Septemb

OPINION AND ORDER AIKEN, Chief Judge. Defendants Joe Felix, Jay Huskey, Michael Mahler, Ben Woodward, and the City of Sutherlin (“City”) move for summary judgment on plaintiff Erica Price’s claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. R. 56. For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND On October 27, 2009, at approximatel

Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court. Investors can recover damages in a private securities fraud action only if they prove that they relied on the defendant's misrepresentation in deciding to buy or sell a company's stock. In Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224,

DICKINSON, Presiding Justice, for the Court: ¶ 1. The two subscribing witnesses to Lela W. Holmes’s will testified that they did not know they were witnessing a will; that Lela did not request they witness a will; and that they did nothing to satisfy themselves that Lela was of sound and disposing mind when she executed the will. Still, the chancellor admitted the will to probate, and the contestants appea

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT ERICA FRAZIER, CRYSTAL STUKES-LEWIS, BIANCA PRICE, VENICAL CANADAY, LASHAWN WEST, LAPORSCHA LAWSON, CHATOYA HARRIS, EBONY KEELS, On behalf of themselves individually, and their minor children, AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED RESIDENTS, Appellants, v. GMF-STONYBROOK, L.L.C., GMF-PRESE

SCHEB, Judge. Defendant, Dallas Price, in separate jury trials, was convicted of grand theft auto and two counts of armed robbery. The court imposed two life sentences for the robberies with a consecutive ten year sentence for the grand theft. We reverse and remand with instructions. *891Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress, cont

01/10/2024 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 20, 2023 Session ERIC WAYNE BARTON v. MECHELLE SCHOLMER BARTON Appeal from the Chancery Court for Blount County No. 2015-021 Telford E. Forgety, Jr., Chancellor ______________________________

FIRST DIVISION BARNES, P. J., GOBEIL and MARKLE, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules DEADLINES ARE NO LONGER TOLLED IN THIS

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA FILED MATTHEW PRICE, Claimant Below, Petitioner April 29, 2025 ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK v.) No. 24-ICA-411 (JCN: 2023017193) INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: This appeal arises out of a multi-district litigation, in which multiple plaintiffs and their family members allege that they experienced various health problems after being exposed to toxic substances in the drinking water while living at Camp Lejeune, a military base in North Carolina. The plaintiffs brought this action against the United States under

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 14‐3168 ERICA TIERNEY, ANDRIS STRAUTINS, NATALIE ROBLES, JEFFREY BENKLER, ERICK D. OLIVER, and LILI ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs‐Appellants,

Rel: March 10, 2023 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BARBARA M.G. LYNN, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification [Docket Entry #341], Defendants’ Response and Brief on Price Impact [Docket Entry # 572], and Plaintiffs’ Price Impact Memorandum [Docket Entry # 594]. For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, only with respect to the

PER CURIAM: This case is before the Court upon the appeal of John William Earnest Ward (“the Husband”) from the final order entered on September 5, 2012, by the Circuit Coux-t of Mercer County, West Virginia, in a divorce case. The circuit court affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, the family coui’t’s order. 1 The

OPINION OF THE COURT [563 U.S. 807] Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. To prevail on the merits in a private securities fraud action, investors must demonstrate that the defendant’s deceptive conduct caused their claimed economic loss. This requirement is commonly referred to as “loss causation.” The question presented in this case is whether secur

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 06-3752 ERICA HARZEWSKI, et al., on their own behalf and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GUIDANT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs-Appellees, a putative class of plaintiffs, seek to recover damages from Defendants-Appellants for securities fraud under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The district court concluded that Defendants-Appellants were not entitled to use evidence of no market price impact to rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption of relianc

*807 Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. To prevail on the merits in a private securities fraud action, investors must demonstrate that the defendant’s deceptive conduct caused their claimed economic loss. This requirement is commonly referred to as “loss causati