Cases

In December 1997, Peter Hepp filed a complaint against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., seeking workers' compensation benefits. Following discovery, the parties agreed to settle the case. In June 1998, the trial court approved the settlement. In August 1998, Hepp petitioned the trial court to reopen his case, for consideration of vocational disability, alleging that Wal-Mart had terminated him shortly after the settlement. The trial court granted Hepp's petition to reopen; it entered a judgment

114 F.Supp.2d 400 (2000) Anthony C. JOINER, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.; and Sam's Club, A Division of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendants. No. 1:99CV34-C. United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division. February 25, 2000. *401 *402 *4

339 S.C. 327 (2000) 529 S.E.2d 68 Marguerite MILETIC, Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Respondent. No. 3132. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Heard February 10, 2000. Decided March 13, 2000. *328 William M. Bowen, of Hilton Head Island, for appellant. J.R. Murphy, of Murphy a

69 F.Supp.2d 749 (1999) Renee LANE v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, INC. No. CIV. CCB-99-763. United States District Court, D. Maryland. September 1, 1999. *750 W. Robert Donovan, Jr., Ashcraft & Gerel, Baltimore, MD, for Plaintiff. Todd Horn, Venable, Baetjer & Howard, LLP, Whitney Head, Litigation Department, Wal-Mart St

AFFIRM; Opinion Filed February 18, 2020 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-01542-CV SANDRA BEASLEY, Appellant V. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court

DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge An administrative law judge (ALJ) found appellant Felecia Davenport was not entitled to temporary total-disability benefits (TTD) for the period from February 17, 2015, to a date to be determined. Specifically, the ALJ found appellee Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,1 (Wal-Mart) has at all times made suitable employment available to Davenport within her physical restrictions until such time D

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-1529 LINDA WALDON and STEVE WALDON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Store Number 1655, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHARLES RIDGEWAY; JAIME Nos. 17-15983 FAMOSO; JOSHUA HAROLD; 17-16142 RICHARD BYERS; DAN THATCHER; WILLIE FRANKLIN; TIME OPITZ; D.C. No. FARRIS DAY; KARL MERHOFF, 3:08-cv-05221-SI Plaintiffs-Appellees/ Cross-Appellants, OPINION v. WALMART INC., DBA Wa

FOURTH DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., COOMER and MARKLE, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules February 14,

James G. Carr Sr., U.S. District Judge *1021This is a slip-and-fall case. On Father's Day, 2013, plaintiff Connie Pelland was shopping at the Wal-Mart store on Glendale Avenue in Toledo, Ohio. As she was walking to the front of the store to use the restroom, Pelland slipped and fell on the wet surface next to a check-out register. She broke

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-1529 LINDA WALDON and STEVE WALDON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Store Number 1655, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-1529 LINDA WALDON and STEVE WALDON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Store Number 1655, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1102 Doc: 38 Filed: 06/04/2025 Pg: 1 of 18 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1102 LOIS ANN BROWN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal f

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-1529 LINDA WALDON and STEVE WALDON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Store Number 1655, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 22-3202 & 23-1021 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., Defendant-Appellant/

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 22-3202 & 23-1021 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., Defendant-Appellant/

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, ECF No. 18—Granted Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., United States District Judge I. Introduction Defendants removed this case from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The two named individual defendants are not diverse from most of the Plaintiffs, but Defendants contend that they were fraudulently jo

OPINION MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge. Following a safety-hazard incident, defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., terminated plaintiff Reva Richardson’s employment at Wal-Mart’s Lansing, Michigan, store. At the time she was fired, Richardson was 62 years old. She sued Wal-Mart in Michigan-state court, alleging age.discrimination in violation of Michigan’s

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) STARKS V. WAL-MART STORES NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E). MARIA M. STARKS AND VIRGIL S. STARKS, APPELLANTS, V.

CLIFF HOOFMAN, Judge | Appellants Lakesia Chandler and Jasmine Davis appeal from the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of appellees, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”); L’Oreal USA; and L’Oreal USA Products, Inc. (collectively, “L’Oreal”). On appeal, appellants argue that the circuit court erred by (1) ignoring evidence that was favor