Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER A. JOE FISH, Senior District Judge. Before the court are (1) the defendant’s motion to apply Ohio law (docket entry 15) and (2) the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (docket entry 16). For the reasons stated below, the motion to apply Ohio law is granted, and the motion for summary judgment is denied. I. BACKGROUND

Tom, J.P., and Román, J., concur in a separate memorandum by Tom, J.E, as follows: In this action arising out of a lease between nonparty 554-556 Third Avenue, LLC (landlord) and defendant Execustay Corp., plaintiffs seek a declaration that defendants are obligated to defend and indemnify plaintiff Townhouse Management Co., as landlord’s managing agent, in connection with an underlying personal injury action. The underlying a

This case concerns whether a signatory to a guaranty contract is liable in his individual capacity. When the creditor sued to collect on the guaranty from the signatory in his individual capacity, the trial court granted the signatory's motion to dismiss. Because the contract as a whole is ambiguous as to whether the parties intended the signatory to be liable in his individual capacity, we reverse and remand. I. From the record, the facts appear as follows: S

420 F.Supp. 1166 (1976) Albert N. BERTOZZI et al. v. KING LOUIE INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al. Civ. A. No. 76-0158. United States District Court, D. Rhode Island. September 13, 1976. *1167 *1168 Paul F. Greene, Edward J. Bertozzi, Jr., of Edwards & Angell, Providence, R. I., for plaintiffs.</

WFE Ventures, Inc. v GBD Lake Placid, LLC (2021 NY Slip Op 04683) WFE Ventures, Inc. v GBD Lake Placid, LLC 2021 NY Slip Op 04683 Decided on August 12, 2021 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York Sta

OPINION AND ORDER JUAN M. PEREZ-GIMENEZ, District Judge. Before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. See Docket No. 65. For the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the plaintiffs’ motion. *563A. BACKGROUND On August 20, 2012, plaintiffs A

FILED IN st 1 COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TX 12/07/2015 CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, NO. CLERK IN THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF TE

GREENE, J. In this case, we consider whether George Poole’s (“Appellant’s”) personal injury claim for injuries suffered when he slipped and fell on black ice was properly resolved on summary judgment based on Appellant’s alleged assumption of the risk. Based upon the record, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that Appellant had knowledge of the risk that resulted in injuries, when, in making a delivery during the course of his

Before the Court in these products liability actions are consolidated Motions to Dismiss (Motions) filed by the Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc. (Bard), and Davol, Inc. (Davol) *Page 2 (collectively, the Defendants), against all of the above-named Plaintiffs.1 The Motions are based upon the doctrine of forum nonconveniens. The Plaintiffs have filed objections. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 §

782 So.2d 188 (2000) Ex parte CTB, INC. (Re Joe Murphy v. CTB, INC., et al.) 1990119. Supreme Court of Alabama. July 28, 2000. Rehearing Denied October 27, 2000. *190 F. Chadwick Morriss, Mitch Henry, and William H. Webster of Rushton, Stakely, Johnson & Garrett, P.A., Montgomery, for petitioner. Jere L. B

373 F.Supp.2d 257 (2005) ELEMENTIS CHEMICALS INC., Plaintiff, v. T H AGRICULTURE AND NUTRITION, L.L.C., and Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendants. Phillips Electronics North America Corporation, Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. Elementis Chemicals Inc., Counterclaim Defendant. T H Agriculture and Nutrition, L.L.C., Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. Elementis Chemicals Inc., Counterclaim Defendant. Phillips Elect

KANE, Senior District Judge. This appeal arises out of an action brought by more than four hundred former employees of Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. against their former employer and others alleging violations of federal and Oklahoma securities law and common law fraud. After a segmented trial to the court on the issue of whether an interest in the instrument at issue, an employee stock ownership plan, constituted a security und

940 F.2d 564 60 USLW 2075, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,097,13 Employee Benefits Ca 2473 William T. USELTON; W.D. Hupp; C.J. Dowling; KennethMiles; G.D. Jeffcoat; Jack Wilson; K.D. Witt; PaulaRosa; Johnny S. Hunt; James A. Mason; Robert E. Stuart;Jerry Don Casey; Maurice Uhrmacher; Loyd A. Duncan;Vernon Jordan; Hubert D. Williamson; J.W. Haris; D.L.Haralson; Harvey Leo Hess; Wood G. I

427 F.2d 97 Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,665BATH INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Emmet J. BLOT and Hambro American Bank & Trust Co., a NewYork Corporation, Defendant-Appellants, and Edward A.Merkle, Madison Fund, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, MadInternational, Inc., a corporation, Richard E. McConnell,Donner Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation, NortonPenturn, Clark Estates, Inc., a c

HASTINGS, Senior Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from an order of the district court granting plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining appellants and other defendants, as well as “all persons controlled by them or in active concert with them,” from “proceeding with their plan (including, but not limited to removing the chief executive officer of [plaintiff] Bath and calling for a special shareholders’ meeti

305 F.Supp. 526 (1969) BATH INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. Emmet J. BLOT, Edward A. Merkle, Madison Fund, Inc., a Delaware corporation, MAD International, Inc., a corporation, Richard E. McConnell, Donner Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, Hambro American Bank & Trust Co., a New York corporation, Norton Penturn, Clark Estates, Inc., a corporation, X, Y and Z Investment Companies, and A, B and C Investment Bankin

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SIDNEY A. FITZWATER, Chief Judge. In this action alleging claims for race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”), Tex. Lab.Code Ann. §§ 21.001-21.556 (West 2006), and for intentional infliction of

Memorandum Opinion & Order GRAY H. MILLER, District Judge. Pending before the court are defendants, Denbury Onshore, L.L.C. and Patterson-UTI Drilling Company, L.L.C.’s motions for summary judgment pertaining to all of plaintiffs’ claims (Dkts. 27, 30, 31). After considering the motions, responses, record evidence, and applicable law, the court is of the opinion that defendants’ motions should be GRAN

EFiled: Jul 22 2014 12:05PM EDT Transaction ID 55766261 Case No. 8442-VCN IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MPT OF HOBOKEN TRS, LLC, a : Delaware Limited Liability Company, : MPT OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P., : a Delaware Limited Partnership, and MPT : OF HOBOKEN REAL ESTATE, LLC, : a De

FISHER, Circuit Judge, dissenting: This case requires us to balance two important governmental interests: the ability of states to control the use of their own funds, and the federal government’s national labor policy. The majority’s critical error is in failing to recognize our responsibility to honor both of these interests to the extent possible — instead, it gives short shrift to California’s sovereign