Cases

ACCEPTED 15-25-00012-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 3:13 PM No. 15-25-00012-CV

ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV

42 Cal.Rptr.3d 2 (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264 132 P.3d 211 Amaani LYLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WARNER BROTHERS TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. S125171. Supreme Court of California. April 20, 2006. *4 Mark Weidmann, Los Angeles, and Scott O. Cummings, Lon

754 F.Supp.2d 1208 (2010) In re TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. UNINTENDED ACCELERATION MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This document relates to: All personal liability/wrong death cases. Case No. 8:10ML 02151 JVS (FMOx). United States District Court, C.D. California. December 9, 2010. *1211 Andrea Bierstein, Clinton

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1103 KENNETH ACKERMAN; JAMES ACKERMAN; APRIL ACKERMAN; MARY ACKERMAN, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Thomas Ackerman; CHARLES V. ADAMS; CHRISTIANNE M. ADAMS; JOHN ALEXIS; CHARLES J. ARKINS; LULA M. ARKINS; THOMAS J. ARNO; AMY H. ARNO, Both individually and as next friends of A.A. and E.A.; R

785 F.Supp.2d 883 (2011) In re TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. This Document Relates To: All Foreign Plaintiffs' Economic Loss Cases. Case No. 8:10ML 02151 JVS (FMOx). United States District Court, C.D. California. April 8, 2011. *888 Andrea Bierstein, Clinton

ORDER Upon consideration of the motion of the Federal Trade Commission for issuance of the mandate herein, and of the memoranda in support of and in opposition to the motion, it is, for the reasons expressed in the accompanying memorandum, ORDERED by the Court that the motion for issuance of the mandate be and hereby is denied; and it is Further ORDERED by the Court, sua sponte, that th

685 F.Supp.2d 186 (2010) In re PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY AVERAGE WHOLESALE PRICE LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: The City of New York, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 01-12257-PBS. MDL No. 1456. Subcategory Case No. 03-10643-PBS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. February 9, 2010.

647 F.2d 1124 207 U.S.App.D.C. 384, 1980-2 Trade Cases 63,441 DEERING MILLIKEN, INC., Appellant,v.FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al.DEERING-MILLIKEN, INC., Appellant,v.FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al.In re FTC LINE OF BUSINESS REPORT LITIGATION NL Industries,Inc., Appellant.In re FTC LINE OF BUSINESS REPORT LITIGATION Federal TradeCommission Parties, Appellants.In re FTC CORPORATE

DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment: I admire the majority’s deft circumnavigation of serious errors of fact and law in pursuit of an ultimately defensible result. I write separately because the district court’s errors were so many and of such significance that I cannot share the majority’s confidence that they did not contribute to that result. More importantly, I believe that leaving those e

432 F.Supp. 291 (1977) In re FTC CORPORATE PATTERNS REPORT LITIGATION. In re FTC LINE OF BUSINESS REPORT LITIGATION. Misc. Nos. 76-0126, 76-0127. United States District Court, District of Columbia. April 12, 1977. *292 *293 *294 *2

Matter of Attorneys Who are in Violation of Judiciary Law Section 468-a for Failing to Register (2025 NY Slip Op 01717) Matter of Attorneys Who are in Violation of Judiciary Law Section 468-a for Failing to Register 2025 NY Slip Op 01717 Decided on March 20, 2025 Appellate Di

432 F.Supp. 274 (1977) In re FTC CORPORATE PATTERNS REPORT LITIGATION. In re FTC LINE OF BUSINESS REPORT LITIGATION. Misc. Nos. 76-0126, 76-0127. United States District Court, District of Columbia. January 21, 1977. *275 *276 Edward T. Tait, Lee A. Rau, John M. Wood, Stuart M. Gerson, and Thomas H

AMENDED MEMORANDUM *195AND ORDER1 SARIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION New York City and forty-two New York counties have brought suit against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and subsidiaries alleging Medicaid fraud in violation of the federal Best Prices Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1