Cases

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Former decision, 134 S.Ct. 138Petition for rehearing denied.

Case: 19-40299 Document: 00515440589 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 4, 2020 No. 19-40299

MEMORANDUM ORDER KATHLEEN KAY, United States Magistrate Judge: Pending before this court is the plaintiffs motion to remand this suit to the 30th Judicial District Court, Parish of Vernon, State of Louisiana. Doc. 8. For the following reasons, the Motion to Remand is DENIED. *423 Facts and Procedural History

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: *368 Danny Mills and Dennis Chartier, the defendants-appellants, were each mayors of the City of Naples, Texas, at times when the plaintiff was employed by the City. Arthur Mitchell, the plaintiff-appellee, is an African-American man who claims that the defenda

AMY, Judge. _JjThe defendant was charged with first degree murder and aggravated arson. *465The State later amended the bill to charges of second degree murder and aggravated arson. After a bench trial, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter and aggravated arson. The trial court imposed a fifteen-year sentence on the aggravated arson conviction and thirty-year se

Adkins, J. Statutory interpretation is a complex task for any court, and requires careful reflection upon the text of the statute, and the intent of the legislative body. These complexities are compounded when we consider a statute's relationship with equitable doctrines. The Maryland General Assembly has enacted a comprehensive scheme to identify and protect the rights of individua

ACCEPTED 07-14-00405-CV SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS AMARILLO, TEXAS 2/18/2015 4:43:44 PM

ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV

ACCEPTED 15-25-00012-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 3:13 PM No. 15-25-00012-CV

ODOM, J. We find in the record the written opinion of the Judge of the District Court which sets forth concisely the pleadings and the issues involved, an elaborate discussion of the facts, which opinion is in full as follows: OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT “Plaintiff alleges that on or about November 10, 1926, the defendant employed him to obtain an oil and gas lease from one Joh

456 So.2d 1340 (1983) Robert B. TODD, et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES of the State of Louisiana. No. 82-C-2915. Supreme Court of Louisiana. November 28, 1983. On Rehearing October 15, 1984. Rehearing Granted December 6, 1984. *1341 William J. Guste, Jr.,

1 Reported in 29 N.W.2d 657. Action by the state to determine adverse claims to the bed of Syracuse Lake, situated in sections 5 and 6, township 58 north, range 15 west, St. Louis county, Minnesota. The action involves only that portion of the bed of the lake below low-water mark, comprising approximately 33 acres, in which there are valuable iron ore deposits. Defendants other

Case: 23-20131 Document: 00517004222 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED

RULING AND ORDER BRIAN A. JACKSON, Chief Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Cajun Deep Foundations LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 46), filed by Defendant Cajun Deep Foundations, LLC (“Cajun Deep”), seeking an order from this Court dismissing Plaintiff Terrance J. La-vigne’s (“Lavigne”) claims against it, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1 Lavig

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SIDNEY A. FITZWATER, Chief Judge. In this action alleging claims for race discrimination and retaliation under Title *477VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”), Tex. Lab.Code Ann.

*1328OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court on Defendant Wright Medical Technology, Inc. ’s (“Defendant” or “Wright Medical”)1 Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the Alternative, Motion for-New Trial and to Amend the Judgment [241] (“Ren

SECOND AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MARCIA A. CRONE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Pending before the court are Defendant Firestone Polymers, LLC’s (“Firestone”) Motions for Summary Judgment (# s 59-66). Having considered the motions, the submissions of the parties, the pleadings, and the applicable law, the court finds that Firestone’s motions should be granted in part and denied in part.

197 F.Supp.2d 723 (2002) Rudy ACHEE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PORT DRUM COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Nos. 1:98-CV-1554, 1:02-CV-118. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division. April 15, 2002. *724 *725 Robert C. Hillard, Hilliard & Munoz, Corpus Christi, TX, Russell W. Heal

ACCEPTED 12-15-00105-CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 9/11/2015 4:59:3