Cases

643 F.3d 681 (2011) Claude A. REESE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC., Defendant-Appellant. No. 10-35128. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 7, 2011. Filed June 29, 2011. *683 Richard C. Pepperma

Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the P ACIFIC R EPORTER . Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email corrections@appellate.courts.state.ak.us. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA BP PIPELINES (ALASKA) INC., ) CONOCOPHILLIPS ) Supreme C

Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the P ACIFIC R EPORTER . Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email corrections@appellate.courts.state.ak.us. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA BP PIPELINES (ALASKA) INC., ) CONOCOPHILLIPS ) Supreme C

MATHESON, Circuit Judge. This case concerns a dispute between Elm Ridge Exploration Company, LLC (“Elm Ridge”), the operator of certain oil and gas leases in New Mexico, and Fred Engle, the majority owner of the leases. An operating agreement (the “Operating Agreement” or “Agreement”) governs their relationship. Elm Ridge seeks to recover costs it incurred in drilling a well o

669 F.Supp.2d 805 (2009) Percy CURRY, Rick Banks, III, and Marie Hillard, Plaintiffs, v. SBC COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a.k.a. AT & T, Inc., Defendant. Case No. 06-11728. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. October 30, 2009. *812 Ann L. Miller, E. Powell Miller, Andrew R. Dranchak, The Miller Law Firm,

747 F.Supp.2d 906 (2010) Patricia E. McBROOM, Plaintiff, v. BARNES & NOBLE BOOKSELLERS, INC., Defendant. Case No. 4:09CV2417. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. October 8, 2010. *909 Charles W. Oldfield, Ira J. Mirkin, Green Haines Sgambati, Youngstown, OH, for Plaintiff. Tara A. Aschenbrand, Su

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MILLER, Judge. This matter is before the court after argument on plaintiffs Motion To Dismiss the Counterclaims of Defendant the United States of America for failure to state claims for which relief can be granted pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(6) and failure to properly plead fraud under RCFC 9(b). Plaintiffs motion calls into question the level of proof required for each of def

500 F.Supp.2d 556 (2007) MERCEXCHANGE, L.L.C., Plaintiff, v. EBAY, INC. and Half.Com, Inc., Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:01cv736. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division. July 27, 2007. As Corrected August 1, 2007. *557 *558

ACCEPTED 05-15-00369-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 9/8/2015 6:10:20 PM

149 F.Supp.2d 305 (2001) Virginia BRUMLEY, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Earnest Brumley, Heather Brumley, Gina Brumley Forrest, Earnest Brumley, Jr., and Michael Brumley, Plaintiffs, v. PFIZER, INC., Defendant. No. CIV.A. C-00-160. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Corpus Christi Division. June 15, 2001. *

313 F.Supp.2d 951 (2004) ENGINEERED PRODUCTS CO., Plaintiff, v. DONALDSON COMPANY, INC., Defendant. No. C 98-2106 MWB. United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division. April 13, 2004. *952 *953 *954 *955 Bridge

ORDER CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS AND APPROVING CONSENT DECREE GOLD, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court pursuant to the Court’s June 7, 2001 Order Concerning Settlement Fairness Hearing, and the parties’ June 2, 2001 submission of a Joint Motion for Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Proposed Consent Decree; Conditionally Certifying the Settlement Class; Directing Notice to the Cla

61 F.Supp.2d 133 (1999) MONSANTO COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MYCOGEN PLANT SCIENCE, INC., Agrigenetics, Inc., and Novartis Corporation, Defendants. No. Civ.A. 96-133-RRM. United States District Court, D. Delaware. August 18, 1999. *134 *135 *136

641 F.Supp. 1359 (1986) Daniel GARSHMAN and Donald Frank, as General Partners for Tarbell I, a Limited Partnership, et al., on their own behalf and as representatives of all private persons and business entities throughout the United States who are gas producer/investors who have funded gas well exploration in New York and Pennsylvania for resale to the pipeline services of Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSAL RESOURCES

HIGGINBOTHAM, J.' I «This case presents a res nova issue involving a statutory interpretation of the Louisiana alternative fuel tax,credit found at La. R.S. 47:6035. The Louisiana Department of Revenue (“LDR”), through its Secretary, Tim Barfield, appeals a judgment of the district coqrt affirming the Louisiana Board of. Tax Appeals .(“BTA”) and permitting the tax credit in favor of Terry and Gwen Bolotte (“the Bolo

OPINION FIRESTONE, Judge. Pending before the court are the motion for partial summary judgment by the plaintiffs, Wallace Oenga, et al. (“plaintiffs” or “the Oenga heirs”),1 the motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment by the defendant, the United States (“defendant” or “government”), and the motion by the defendant-intervenors, BP Exploration (Alaska) In

KING, Senior Judge: ^Petitioner District of Columbia Office of Tax and Revenue (“OTR”) petitions for review of three orders issued by the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) that grant summary judgment to respondents Exxon Mobil Oil Corp., Shell Oil Co., and Hess Corp. (collectively, the “oil companies”) and reverse OTR’s Notices of Proposed Assessment of Tax Deficiency ag

District of Columbia Court of Appeals Nos. 14-AA-1401, 14-AA-1403 & 14-AA-1404 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF TAX & REVENUE, JUN 30 2016 Petitioner, v. OTR-49-11 EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION, et al., Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the District of Columbia Offi

OPINION BOLGER, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION Under a Department of Revenue regulation, all appeals of oil and gas property tax valuation must be heard by the State 'Assessment Review Board (SARB), while appeals of oil and gas property taxability must be heard by the Department of Revenue (Revenue), Three municipalities challenged this reg

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SAI, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 14-403 (RDM) TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff brings this Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, action seeking a wide assortm