Cases

AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed April 14, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01457-CV EL PAISANO NORTHWEST HIGHWAY, INC., Appellant V. IRMA ARZATE, Appellee On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Cour

Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed November 4, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Reversed and Remanded and Opinion filed December 21, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court Harr

251 Ga. 24 (1983) 302 S.E.2d 563 McCRAY et al. v. COBB COUNTY et al. 39277. Supreme Court of Georgia. Decided May 12, 1983. Roy David Petersen, Melvin S. Nash, for appellants. Irma B. Glover, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Kathryn Allen, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees. Gary J. Leshaw, Gloria A.

135 F.3d 1289 Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 90,134, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 9495,98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 907,98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1207 Alan RICHARDS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.LLOYD'S OF LONDON, an unincorporated association, et al.,Defendants-Appellees.John R. NORTON, III; Doris S. Norton; Diane B. Allison;Charles G. Bentzin; F.M. Binkley; Delmar A. Brady; SammeJo Brady; George Maning C

RONALD N. DAVIES, District Judge. These two cases are before us upon petitions of the National Labor Relations Board agreeable to Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended (61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.) to enforce consolidated orders directed to The Little Rock Down-towner, Inc., issued

66 So.2d 578 (1953) 223 La. 641 TAYLOR v. BROWN et al. Nos. 41006, 41046. Supreme Court of Louisiana. June 1, 1953. Rehearing Denied July 3, 1953. Ashton L. Stewart, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant. Philip K. Jones, Baton Rouge, for intervenor-appellant. Benton & Moseley, Baton Rouge, for defendants-app

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL CAMPBELL; et al, * No. 15-56990 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. v. 2:04-cv-08592- AG-AJW CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee. CESAR MATA,

GUIDRY, J., dissenting. [jAt issue in this appeal is not whether the Dillons were granted a jury trial, but whether they were entitled to a new jury. The opinion asserts that a party is entitled to a jury that continues to be qualified under the criteria required by law. As a preliminary matter, it is observed that on appeal, the appellants simply argued that they were prejudiced by the use of the same ju

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

Whitaker, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This case is before the court on Senate Resolution 115, 84th Congress, 1st Session, referring to us plaintiffs’ claims for a .report thereon, giving findings of fact and stating our conclusions on whether or not plaintiffs have legal or equitable *204claims, and tbe amounts, if any, legally or equita

588 F.Supp. 247 (1984) Irene ALLEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Civ. No. C-79-0515J. United States District Court, D. Utah, C.D. May 10, 1984. *248 *249 *250 *251