Cases

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to reopen 22 closed civil cases. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district cou

DAVIS, Judge. This case requires us to revisit the issue of whether lawsuits brought by companies in the business of licensing and distributing promotional rewards programs seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as to the legality of those programs are barred by sovereign immunity or are otherwise nonjusticiable. Crazie Overstock Promotions, LLC ("Crazie Overstock") and T and A A

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS CYNTHIA PAOLA BOWLES, § No. 08-23-00311-CV Appellant, § Appeal from v. § 365th District Court of HAL FRANK BOWLES,

FAIR, J., for the Court: ¶ 1. Norman Edwards was driving on a two-lane county road when he rounded a *1032 curve and encountered Christy Harper’s vehicle parked on the wrong side of the road at her mailbox. Edwards was unable to avoid a collision because, at that moment, ano

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge: Appellants Astrolabe Shipping Ltd., Blue Emerald Shipping Ltd., and Kassos Maritime Enterprises Ltd., individually and as claimants of the MW MOUNT YMITOS and the MOUNT YMITOS, in rem (hereinafter *450collectively referred to as “appellants” or “the MOUNT YMITOS”) appeal the decision of the district court, after a trial to the b

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In these consolidatéd appeals, William Scott Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motions for recusal and to reopen. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district cour

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 47919 EDWARD A. EASTERLING and JANICE ) EASTERLING, husband and wife, ) ) Boise, June 2021 Term Plaintiffs-Respondents, ) ) Opinion filed: January 25, 2023 v. )

PER CURIAM: William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. North Carolina, No. 2:11-cv-00500-RBS-TEM (E.D.Va. Sept. 26, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

79 S.W.3d 592 (2002) Harry LEMAIRE, Appellant, v. Don J. DAVIS, Golden Gate, Inc., NuCorp, Inc., Cage, Hill & Niehaus, L.L.P., Ronald R. Niehaus, Hal T. Thorne and Thorne & Thorne, Inc., Appellees. No. 07-01-0038-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo. April 17, 2002. Rehearing Overruled August 12, 2002. *594</

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 47919 EDWARD A. EASTERLING and JANICE ) EASTERLING, husband and wife, ) ) Boise, June 2021 Term Plaintiffs-Respondents, ) ) Opinion filed: December 21, 2021 v. )

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *182 ORDER PER CURIAM: William Scott Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order staying the case pending this court’s judgment on Davis’ prior interlocutory notice of appeal. This c

Judgment rendered June 26, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 55,623-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA ***** HAL CARTER AND DREAM

Opinion issued December 6, 2012. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NOS. 01-11-00900-CR; 01-11-00901-CR ——————————— RUSSELL HAL DUNCAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TE

Mr. Hal A. Davis County Attorney Liberty County 7 West Washington Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Dear Mr. Davis: This is in response to your request for an opinion on substantially the following question: WHETHER s 116.111, F.S., FLORIDA'S ANTINEPOTISM LAW, WOULD PROHIBIT THE EMPLOYMENT BY THE COUNTY OF THE `COUSIN-IN-LAW' OR `SISTER-IN-LAW BY MARRIAGE' OF A MEMBER OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION? According to your letter the questioned relatio

ORDER On January 7, 2009, Appellant moved this court for clarification regarding the district court’s denial of a joint stipulation on attorney-client privileged documents. Appellant’s unopposed motion for clarification is granted. The district court abused its discretion in summarily denying the proposed order for lack of good cause. The district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the portion of the proposed order that w

WITHDRAWN 04/04/12 REISSUED 04/04/12 IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-11-00404-CV HAL R. PETTIGREW, SR. AND HAL R. PETTIGREW, JR., Appellants v. PAUL COOK, CLEO COOK, BOB MURRY, SHE

ORDER On January 7, 2009, Appellant moved this court for clarification regarding the district court’s denial of a joint stipulation on attorney-client privileged documents. Appellant’s unopposed motion for clarification is granted. The district court abused its discretion in summarily denying the proposed order for lack of good cause. The district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the portion of the proposed order that w

MEMORANDUM ** Appellant A. Farber & Partners, Inc. (the “Receiver”) was appointed interim re*491ceiver over the assets of Salim Damji and Strategic Trading Systems Instant White (“STS”) by an order issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The Receiver’s appointment followed a Canadian class action by a group of investors against Damji fo

MEMORANDUM ** Appellant A. Farber & Partners, Inc. (the “Receiver”) was appointed interim re*491ceiver over the assets of Salim Damji and Strategic Trading Systems Instant White (“STS”) by an order issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The Receiver’s appointment followed a Canadian class action by a group of investors against Damji fo

507 F.3d 252 (2007) LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAUTE DIGGITY DOG, LLC; Victoria D.N. Dauernheim; Woofies, LLC, d/b/a Woofie's Pet Boutique, Defendant-Appellees.*253 International Trademark Association, Amicus Supporting Appellant. No. 06-2267. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued: September 26