Cases

PALMER, J. **4*6The sole issue now before us in this appeal by the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, **5is whether the habeas court properly concluded that the petitioner, Mi

NEW ORLEANS & GULF * NO. 2020-CA-0493 COAST RAILWAY COMPANY * VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL * AMERICAN MIDSTREAM FOURTH CIRCUIT (LOUISIANA INTRASTATE), * L.L.C. AND AMERICAN STATE OF LOUISIANA MIDSTREAM PARTNERSHIP, ******* L.P. APPEAL FROM

Justice SOTOMAYOR, concurring as to all but Part IV-A. I agree with most of the Court's rationale, and so I join all but Part IV-A of its opinion. I write separately, however, to underscore three points. First, overruling precedent here is not only warranted, but compelled. Second, the interests at stake point far more clearly to that outcome than those in other recent cases. And finally, the racially biased origins of the Louisia

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2019 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

693 F.Supp.2d 442 (2010) Lerato Nomvuyo MZAMANE, Plaintiff, v. Oprah WINFREY, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 08-4884. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. March 15, 2010. *460 Timothy McGowan, W. Matthew Reber, Christina M. Rideout, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘o

ACCEPTED 01-14-00870-cv FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/8/2015 12:33:22 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

ACCEPTED 13-14-00725-cv THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 7/23/2

EFiled: Jan 25 2016 04:17PM EST Transaction ID 58474052 Case No. 9962-VCL IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE EZCORP INC. CONSULTING ) AGREEMENT DERIVATIVE ) C.A. No. 9962-VCL LITIGATION ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE EZCORP INC. CONSULTING ) AGREEMENT DERIVATIVE ) C.A. No. 9962-VCL LITIGATION ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Date Submitted: October 27, 2015 Date Decided: January 25, 2016 Seth. D. Rigrodsky, Brian D. Long, Gina M. Serra, Jeremy J. Reilly, RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Nicholas I.

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge Table of Contents I. Introduction...1116 II. Background...1117 A. Securitization...1117 B. Historical Background...1117 C. The Client Contract and the Client Guide...1118 1. Section 113: General Rules of Interpretation...1119

./ I-;:. LJ 0 This document contains some pages that are of poor quality at the time of imaging. RECEIVED IN 0 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS NOV 30 2Ui5 n THE STATE OF TEXAS