Cases

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE April 27, 2012 Session GOSSETT MOTOR CARS, LLC v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC. ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 101449III Ellen H. Lyle, Chancellor No. M2011-01769-COA-R3-CV - August 2, 2012 This appeal concerns a car dealership’s protest of Hyundai’s p

471 F.Supp.2d 814 (2007) William E. BENNETT, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICA ONLINE, INC., Time Warner, Inc., Tucows, Inc., and John Doe, Defendants. Civil Case No. 06-13221. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. January 23, 2007. *815 William E. Bennett, Mt. Morris, MI, Pro se. William F. Kolakowski, III,

*1365 BRYSON, Circuit Judge. Appellants Nelleor Puritan Bennett, Inc., and Mallinckrodt Inc. (collectively, “Nelleor”) produce pulse oximeters, medical devices that measure the level of oxygen saturation in a patient’s blood. Nell-eor owns U.S. Patent No. 4,934,372 (“the ’372 patent”), which covers a m

OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. Plaintiffs notice of claim provided information sufficient to apprise defendant New York City Transit Authority of the place, time and nature of her accident in order to “investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merit of [the] claim” (see Brown

[Cite as State v. Bennett, 2014-Ohio-160.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 12CA010286 Appellee v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE TEVIN M. BENNETT

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION (not the court’s final written decision) The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the written opinions that are originally filed by the court. A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential pur

694 P.2d 932 (1985) Donald L. BENNETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SCRIVNER, INC., American Motorists, Respondent-Appellee, and Workers' Compensation Court, Appellee. No. 60851. Supreme Court of Oklahoma. January 22, 1985. Lew Gravitt, Stipe, Gossett, Stipe, Harper, Estes, McCune & Parks, Oklahoma City, for petitioner-appellant. Henry F. Featherly, Lamun

CHANDLER, J., for the Court. 111. On March 8, 2004, Curtis Bennett was indicted for the murder of his wife, Connie Bennett. Bennett waived his right to a jury trial, and a bench trial was held on October 6, 2004 in the Circuit Court of Harrison County. The court found Bennett guilty of murder and sentenced him to life in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Bennett claims there was insuff

ACCEPTED 15-25-00092-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 7/17/2025 10:48 AM NO. 15-25-00092-CV CHRISTOPHER

McAllen State Bank was placed in the hands of the state banking commissioner for liquidation, and was administered by the commissioner through a proceeding in a district court of Hidalgo county, as provided by statute. Griffin Kimbrough, a firm of attorneys, having a claim of $2,504.20 against the bank, filed their verified claim therefor with the commissioner. The commissioner allowed the claim to the extent of only $567, and otherwise finally rejected it. Griffin Kimbrough subsequently fi

In so far as necessary to an understanding of the conclusion to which we have arrived, we will briefly state that this case is one in which the appellee Henderson sued the appellants, Bennett Post, and others not necessary to name, alleging in substance that he had purchased from the named defendants a certain Hupmobile car, giving therefor a Ford car at the agreed value of $325 and his promissory note for $183.70, payable in monthly installments, of which he had paid three, aggregating $55.

The question is whether the word child includes in its meaning an illegitimate child, as that word appears in the following statute hereafter referred to as the pretermission statute: "If any person make his last will and die, leaving a child or children, or descendants of such child or children, in case of their death, not named or provided for in such will, although born after the making of such will, every such testator, so far as shall regard such child or children, or their descen

BOREMAN, Circuit Judge: The appellant, James Walter Bennett, was prosecuted under two indictments charging him with separate violations of the White Slave Traffic Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2421 (1964). The first indictment charged Bennett with transporting Deborah Videtto from Spartanburg, South Carolina, to Chattanooga, Tennessee, in June 1

Carlisle, J. 1. Where, upon the trial of one indicted for murder, the evidence introduced by the State was uncontradicted that the defendant killed the person named in the indictment by shooting him in the head with a pistol; and the defendant, who introduced no evidence, admitted, in his statement to the jury, that he had killed such person, but contended that prior to the time he shot the named person, he and such person had eng

Per Curiam. — Plaintiff leased a farm to defendant and brought this action under the landlord and tenant act, by attachment, to recover three hundred dollar’s, the sum agreed upon as rent. A lot of corn, gathered and ungathered, was levied upon. The corn was sold by order of the court on the twenty-seventh of March, 1886; and on April 12, 1886, plaintiff by an additional writ of attachment caused one Samuel Crowley to be summoned

September 8, 1913. The opinion of the Court was delivered by This was an action by plaintiffs against the defendant for mental anguish, caused by failure to deliver promptly to plaintiff's husband a telegram, announcing the death of her father. The action was both for actual and punitive damages, the cause was heard by his Honor, Judge Shipp, and a jury, at the February term of the Court, 1913, and at the close of the evidence the plaintiffs withdrew from the jury the question of punitive dam

This suit was brought by plaintiff in error, Earl Henry, against Walter Bennett, Inc., in which he seeks to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him in an automobile accident. Plaintiff in error being plaintiff in the suit and defendant in error being defendant in the suit, we will refer to them, respectively, as plaintiff and defendant. The case was tried on plaintiff's third amended original petition and defendant's third amended answer. The

This is an action brought by defendant in error, H.M. Bennett, against the Aetna Insurance Company, of Hartford, Conn., for the recovery of damages, caused by a windstorm, sustained to a hotel building, which was covered by an insurance policy written by the Aetna Insurance Company. The cause was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for the defendant in error in the amount of $250. The court on its own motion remitted $25 from said verdict and rendered a judgment for $225. From th

ORDER JORGE A. SOLIS, District Judge. Now before the Court is Defendant Larry Scott Gresham’s (“Gresham”) Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6), filed on February 21, 2013. (Doc. 7) Plaintiff filed a Response on March 21, 2013. (Doc. 12) Defendant filed a Reply on April 4, 2013. (Doc. 14) After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the evidence, and the applicable law, the Court DENIES Gresham’s Motio

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JEFFREY COLE, United States Magistrate Judge. The plaintiff has moved to strike all thirteen of Chase Bank’s affirmative defenses. Chase has withdrawn its first affirmative defense. The twelve remaining are: 2. Plaintiffs claims against Chase fail because there was no “unauthorized use” as that term is used and defined in 15 U.S.C. § 160