Cases

In the event that more than ten percent of class members opt out of the Settlement, their claim shares will be subtracted from the total Settlement Amount. Id. at 28. If more than 60 class members opt out, USAS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS Re: ECF No. 20 JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge Before the Court is Defendant United’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 20. Defendant U.S. Aviation joined in that Motion. See Haralson v. U.S. Aviation Services Corp., Case No. 16-cv-05226-JST (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 18.1 The Court will grant the m

632 F.Supp.2d 1246 (2008) COREY AIRPORT SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF ATLANTA, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-3243-CAP. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. September 30, 2008. *1254 Griffin B. Bell, Jr., Fisher & Phillips, Joseph Matthew Maguire, Jr., Michael J. Bowers, Balc

487 U.S. 500 (1988) BOYLE, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HEIRS AND ESTATE OF BOYLE v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP. No. 86-492. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 13, 1987 Reargued April 27, 1988 Decided June 27, 1988 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT *501<

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

*794 WILLIAM A. NORRIS, Circuit Judge: This case arises from the government’s alleged negligence in protecting workers at the Nevada Nuclear Testing Site. The government appeals the district court's motion denying summary judgment on the basis of the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Cl

OPINION WILLIAM A. NORRIS, Circuit Judge: This case arises from the government’s alleged negligence in protecting workers at the Nevada Nuclear Testing Site. The government appeals the district court’s motion denying summary judgment on the basis of the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). We affirm.

710 F.Supp. 1088 (1989) CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO., Plaintiff, v. Doreen ALLEN, et al., Defendants. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO., Plaintiff, v. MOORE-HARALSON AGENCY, P.C., et al., Defendants. Civ. A. Nos. CA-5-86-252-C, CA-5-87-156-C. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Lubbock Division. April 3, 1989. *1089

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MARGDA PIERRE-NOEL, on behalf of her minor child K.N., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:23-cv-00070 (TNM) BRIDGES PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is about who must ensure that a disabled ch

454 B.R. 663 (2011) In re Christopher Adam ARNETTE, Debtor. The Ward Family Foundation, Plaintiff, v. Christopher Adam Arnette, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 09-38643-bjh-7. Adversary No. 10-03062.[1] United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. June 7, 2011. *673 Heather H. Jobe, Jeffrey R. Erler, Bell

816 F.2d 1417 55 USLW 2596 Irene H. ALLEN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant. No. 84-2126. United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit. April 20, 1987. Marc Johnston, Appellate Staff Atty., Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice (Richard K. Willard,

769 F.2d 367 Kathy THOMAS, Personal Representative of the Estate ofMartin Duane Thomas, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 84-5472. United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit. Argued April 18, 1985.Decided August 2, 1985. Charles L. Berger, argued, Ber

231 F.Supp.2d 852 (2002) In re AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT AT LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, JUNE 1, 1999. No. 4:99-CV-1308. MDL No. 1308. United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division. November 20, 2002. *853 Michael E. Hale, Glenn W. Jones, D. Keith Fortner, Barber, McCaskill, Jones & Hale, P.A., Philip E. Kaplan, Regina Haralson, Ka

ACCEPTED 03-15-00348-CV 6616789 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

32 N.J. 358 (1960) 161 A.2d 69 CLAUS H. HENNINGSEN AND HELEN HENNINGSEN, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS AND CROSS-APPELLANTS, v. BLOOMFIELD MOTORS, INC., AND CHRYSLER CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND CROSS-RESPONDENTS. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued December 7, 1959. Decided May 9, 1960. *364 Mr.