Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RUBEN CASTILLO, District Judge. Etta Scott brings this putative class action against Westlake Services, LLC (‘Westlake”), doing business as Westlake Financial Services, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the “TCPA” or the “Act”), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. Westlake asserts that it made a full offer of relief to Scott on both of her c

80 F.3d 1220 64 USLW 2692, 131 Lab.Cas. P 11,567,11 IER Cases 910 Sherry AARON; Deborah D. Barber; Dolores V. Beauchamp;Patricia Beauchamp; Brenda Becker; Eva M. Becker; Alice M.Cox; Billi Jo Crews; Betty Doyle; Patty Dull; Jessie F.Dunlap; Lois I. Elseman; Augusta Emmons; Cathy M.Ethington; Carol J. Foster; Joseph E. Foster; Virginia M.Foster; Donald Fritchey; Melissa C. Galbraith;

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH DEC 13 2004 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS PATRICK FISHER Clerk

CLARK, Circuit Judge: In the light of present precedent, the government concedes it failed to carry its evidentiary burden in this tax case but would have us remand this cause to allow it another chance to supply requisite proof. Finding no change in the law since it defaulted the opportunity to make its case in the trial court, we de

291 F.2d 726 J. P. ROGERS, Appellant,v.WESTHOMA OIL COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee (two cases).A. L. HILBIG, Appellant,v.WESTHOMA OIL COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.Frank G. BOLES and Katie M. Boles, Appellants,v.WESTHOMA OIL COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee (seven cases).Blanche ENGEL, Appellant,v.WESTHOMA OIL COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee (two cases).Robert W. BAUGHMAN and Helen E. Baughman,

224 Kan. 662 (1978) 585 P.2d 1006 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JERRY WAYNE SMITH and CAROL J. MILLER, Appellants. No. 49,046 Supreme Court of Kansas. Opinion filed October 28, 1978. William A. Wells, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant Carol J. Miller. Clyde Wendelken, of Wichita, argued the c

272 F.2d 806 TOWN OF MAYSVILLE, OKLAHOMA, a municipal corporation, Appellant,v.MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM COMPANY, a Texas corporation, Pan American Petroleum Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Blackwell Zinc Company, Inc., a New York corporation, Climax Molybdenum Company, a Delaware corporation, Maracaibo Oil Exploration Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Ardie Oil & Gas Company, an Oklahoma corporation, Continental Land & Fur Company

LUCERO, Circuit Judge, dissenting, with whom SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge, joins. No case in my tenure on the court could be more compellingly described as meeting the Rule 35 en banc standard of presenting a “question of exceptional importance” deserving the attention of the entire court than this. In one of the more shameful events in our nation’s history, over two hundred African-Americans were slaughtered and a

TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge. On May 31, 1921, and following into the next day, violent attacks destroyed the African-American community of Greenwood, Oklahoma. An angry white mob converged on Greenwood in a devastating assault, burning homes and businesses, killing up to three hundred people, and leaving thousands homeless. In February 2003, Plaintiffs-Appellants, all Riot survivors or descendants of survivors, filed suit a

MURRAH, Chief Judge. Like Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. v. Town of Maysville, 10 Cir., 249 F.2d 542, this quiet title action by the Town of Mays-ville involves the title to a segment of railroad right-of-way under Section 14 of the Act of April 26, 1906, 34 Stat. 137, 142, which provides in substance and effect that a railroad, having acquired its right-of-way over Indian tribal land pursuant to Section 13 of the Act of February

This is an action based on fraud. The defendants filed separate but like demurrers, which the trial court sustained, and, plaintiff refusing in open court to plead further in said cause, final judgment in favor of defendants was rendered, plaintiff appealing therefrom. The petition omitting caption and signatures, reads thus: "(1) Plaintiff states that he is assignee of all of the rights and claims of Amelia Brown, C.A. Brown and Etta M. Brown under the contract hereinafter ment

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. Pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2109, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated individuals, sued their former employer, the Brown Shoe Company (“Brown Shoe”). Brown Shoe moved to dismiss the case on statute of limitations grounds, but the district court

Appellants operate a restaurant in McComb, in Pike county, and appellee is a public service corporation furnishing electric current to the inhabitants of said city. *Page 819 At the time the bill of complaint was filed herein by appellants, they had become in arrears in the payment of their monthly bills for electric current, and, such default having continued, the public service corporation had threatened to discontinue service unless said arrears were p