Cases

Bradford, Judge. Case Summary [1] Former Lawrenceburg Redevelopment Director/Mayor's Assistant Grant Hughes sued the City of Lawrenceburg and the Lawrenceburg Board of Public Works (collectively, "the City") seeking compensation to which he claimed to be entitled following his termination. The trial court considered competing summary judgment motions before ruling i

ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TANYA WALTON PRATT, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. This dispute arises from allegations by Plaintiff, Miguel Gutierrez, (“Mr. Gutierrez”) against Defendants, The City of Indianapolis (“the City”), Michael R. Kermon (“Officer Kermon”), and Jason M. Thalheimer (“Officer Thalheimer”) (c

954 N.E.2d 974 (2011) Tat-Yik Jarvis KA and Amanda Beth Ka, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, Appellee-Defendant. No. 49A02-1103-CT-188. Court of Appeals of Indiana. August 17, 2011. Publication Ordered September 26, 2011. *975 David E. Dearing, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellants. Greg

717 N.E.2d 1218 (1999) Burke H. MENDENHALL, and Plaza-Hill Realty Corporation, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana and Marion County, Indiana, Appellees-Defendants. No. 49A04-9901-CV-1. Court of Appeals of Indiana. October 12, 1999. *1221 John D. Raikos, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorney for Appellant. Da

933 F.Supp. 763 (1996) Naomi O. HARDEN, Antonio Mucci, Concetta Mucci and Ward O. Hughes, Jr., for themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated noteholders of Firstmark Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. RAFFENSPERGER, HUGHES & CO., INC., Price Waterhouse, Leonard Rochwarger, Jeffrey Rochwarger, Arlene Rochwarger, Arnold B. Gardner, John M. Murray, Armand Castellani, John L. Hettrick, and Morris Himmel, Defendants.

600 F.Supp.2d 805 (2009) Stephen BERRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INDIANAPOLIS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-0248-B. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. February 19, 2009. *807 Gary Cruciani, Eric D. Madden, Michael P. Fritz, Diamond McCarthy, LLP, Dallas, TX, Steven F. M

608 F.Supp.2d 785 (2009) Stephen BERRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INDIANAPOLIS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-0248-B. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. March 11, 2009. *787 Stephen F. Malouf, David W. Evans, Jonathan Andrew Nockels, The Law Offices of Stephen F. Malouf P

818 F.Supp.2d 1112 (2011) Lee HUGHES and Elizabeth Leftwich, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHATTEM, INC., Defendant. No. 1:10-1407-SEB-DML. United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division. August 31, 2011. *1114 James H. McFerrin, McFerrin Law Firm, Robert S. Tellman,

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 21-2728 _______________ CITY OF HOBOKEN v. CHEVRON CORPORATION; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION; SHELL PLC; BP P.L.C.; BP AMERICA, INC.; CONOCOPHILLIPS; CONOCOPHILLIPS CO.; PHILLIPS 66; PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY; AMERI

FILED Oct 30 2023, 9:10 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals

STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from a district court order denying defendants’ motions for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm.1 Plaintiffs Barry Hughes and his two children brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the city of Fort Collins, some of its police officers, and certain district att

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 21a0194p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ ALISON PATRICIA TAYLOR, │ Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appel

225 F.3d 899 (7th Cir. 2000) Jimmy Gresham, on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Bart Peterson, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Indianapolis, Indiana, and the City of Indianapolis, Indiana, Defendants-Appellees. No. 99-3770 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Arg

IN THE Indiana Supreme Court FILED May 30 2024, 11:37 am Supreme Court Case No. 23S-PL-130 CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals

OPINION MEROW, Senior Judge. This is a Wmsfar-related case. See United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839, 116 S.Ct. 2432, 135 L.Ed.2d 964 (1996). Rising interest rates in the 1980s led to the insolvency of many savings and loan associations also known as thrifts. To attract deposits, thrifts had been paying interest at rates that far exceeded their income stream from mortgage agreements that had

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A05-1404-CT-165 RUSH, Chief Justice. To obtain summary judgment in Indiana, a moving party must demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact on at least one element of the opposing party’s claim. Conflicting affidavits regarding an element of a claim cannot satisfy this

MEMORANDUM OPINION KEVIN R. HUENNEKENS, Bankruptcy Judge. The debtors, Circuit City Stores, Inc., et al, (the “Debtors,” or “Circuit City”) filed these bankruptcy cases under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on November 10, 2008 (the “Petition Date”).1 The Debtors’ bankruptcy cases were consolidated for joint administration pursuant to Rule 1015(b) of the Fed

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER John J. Tharp, Jr., United States District Judge Eloísa Chaparro, a Chicago police officer, brought this suit against two fellow officers, Brian Roney and Ron Bonadurer, her supervisor, Sergeant James Wash-burn, and the City of Chicago, asserting sexual harassment and sex discrimination, among other claims, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CITY OF OAKLAND, a Municipal No. 18-16663 Corporation, and The People of the State of California, acting by D.C. Nos. and through the Oakland City 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Attorney; CITY AND COUNTY OF 3:17-cv-06012-WHA SAN FRANCISCO, a Municipal Corporation, and The People of the State of California, acting by ORDER AND and through the San Francisco AMENDED C

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CITY OF OAKLAND, a Municipal No. 18-16663 Corporation, and The People of the State of California, acting by D.C. Nos. and through the Oakland City 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Attorney; CITY AND COUNTY OF 3:17-cv-06012-WHA SAN FRANCISCO, a Municipal Corporation, and The People of the State of California, acting by OPINION and through the San Francisco City Attorney Denni