Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
17 opinions for “Henry Louis Bell, Jr. and Betty Lou Bell”
264 F.3d 344 (3rd Cir. 2001) IN RE: ORTHOPEDIC BONE SCREW PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 1014)J.T. Bradley and Kathy W. Bradley, Appellants in No. 00-3899Regina M. Luellen and Eurston Luellen, Sr., Appellants in No. 00-3900Randal Jon Uribe, Appellant in No. 00-3901Mitchell H. Walker and Kim S. Walker, Appellants in No. 00-3902Jose Morfin, Appellant in No. 00-3903Mary K. Mullen Schmelter and Kurt Allen Schmelter, Appel
618 F.Supp.2d 96 (2009) In re: NEURONTIN MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: Bentley v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., CA No. 05-11997-PBS. Bulger v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., CA No. 07-11426-PBS. Dixon v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., CA No. 05-11998-PBS. McGee v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., CA No. 05-12593-PBS. Owens v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., CA No. 05-11017-PBS. Pursey v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., CA No. 07-10106-PBS. Roberson
Sherrill v. Amerada Hess Corp.public domain
504 S.E.2d 802 (1998) Anna Mae SHERRILL, Annetta C. White, Linda S. Mintz, Vernette Price, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION a/k/a Amerada Petroleum Corporation; Amoco Oil Company; BP Exploration & Oil Inc.; Citgo Petroleum Corporation; Colonial Pipe Line Company; Conoco, Inc. a/k/a Southern Facilities; Crown Central Petroleum Corporation; Exxon Corporation; Marathon Oil Compa
137 Nev., Advance Opinion 4, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA TEVA PARENTERAL MEDICINES, No. 81024 INC., F/K/A SICOR, INC.; BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; AND MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL, INC., Petitioners, FILED vs. THE EIGHT
ACCEPTED 13-14-00725-cv THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 7/23/2
United States v. Eppolitopublic domain
436 F.Supp.2d 532 (2006) UNITED STATES v. Louis EPPOLITO and Stephen Caracappa. No. 05-CR-192. United States District Court, E.D. New York. June 30, 2006. *533 *534 *535 *536 *537 Dan
Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iranpublic domain
SACK, Circuit Judge: In this litigation, judgment creditors of the Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”) attempt to execute on $1.68 billion in bond proceeds allegedly owned by Iran’s central bank. The Supreme Court has instructed that in an execution proceeding concerning a foreign sovereign’s assets, any defense predicated on foreign sovereign immunity must rise or fall on the text of the Foreign Sovereign
Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iranpublic domain
515 F.Supp.2d 25 (2007) Deborah D. PETERSON, Personal Representative of the Estate of James C. Knipple (Dec.), et al., Plaintiffs, v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., Defendants. Civil Action Nos. 01-2094 (RCL), 01-2684(RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. September 7, 2007. *26
Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iranpublic domain
15‐0690 Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 August Term, 2015 4 (Argued: June 8, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2017*) 5
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,420public domain
991 F.2d 1020 Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,420 Kay N. BROWN; Gilbert Fennema; Minnie G. Fennema; HaroldJ. Lemmon; Marjorie T. Miller; William C. Findt; WilliamG. Brown; Loyette Eby; David Lawrence; Charles W. Manz,As Trustee for the Manz Family Trust; Jules Belkin; TonyArlotti; Rita G. Thye; Richard O. Slutzky; AlysonSlutzky; Judith Alterman; Central Machine & Welding, Inc.;George F. Ro
THIS OPINION IS A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Hearing: Mailed: March 7, 2013 June 18, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board _____ Amanda Blackhorse, Marcus Briggs-Cloud, Philip Gover,
Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Abshirepublic domain
OPINION David Puryear, Justice In three separate lawsuits, several hundred individuals sued Asplundh Tree Expert Co. (“Asplundh”) seeking damages stemming from the devastating 2011 Bas-trop County Complex Fire. In response, Asplundh filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the suits were untimely because they were filed past the two-year statute of limitations. After convening a hearing on the moti
348 F.Supp.2d 398 (2004) Carmen THOMPSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES DEPT. OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al., Defendants No. CIV.A. MJG-95-309. United States District Court, D. Maryland. January 6, 2005. *404 Andrew David Freeman, Brown, Goldstein and Levy LLP, Susan Goering, Barbara A. Samuels, Eleanor Montgomery
Newby v. Enron Corp.public domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER HARMON, District Judge. Pending before the Court in the above referenced action inter alia are objections to Judge Rosenthal’s December 12, 2001 order of consolidation filed (1) by Plaintiffs John and Peggy Odam et al. (“the Odam Plaintiffs”) (instrument #53, supplemented by # 99) and (2) by Plaintiff Henry H. Steiner (“Steiner”)(# 75). Als
Glass v. Commissionerpublic domain
NlMS, Judge: In these consolidated cases, respondent determined aggregate deficiencies in excess of $61 million in petitioners’ Federal income taxes for the years 1975 through 1980.2 Each of the petitioners in these cases entered into a series of transactions herein sometimes referred to for convenience as the London Options Transaction. Th
Brown v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc.public domain
JACOBS, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs-appellants appeal from so much of a judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, John M. Walker, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation, 735 F.Supp. 1196, as (a) granted summary judgment to defendant E.F. Hutton Group, Inc. (“Hutton”) on plaintiffs-appellants’ claim that they were sold unsuitable securities in violation of Section 10(b) of the
OPINION OF THE COURT REAVLEY, Circuit Judge. This Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) claim against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for granting clearance to market certain types of pedicle screw fixation devices (referred to generally as bone screws) was dismissed by the District Court pursuant to the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.1 Appellants contend here that