Cases

ACCEPTED 05-15-01019-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 12/4/2015 12:04:49 PM

748 F.Supp.2d 1057 (2010) John DOE I, Individually and on behalf of Proposed Class Members; John Doe II, Individually and on behalf of Proposed Class Members; John Doe III, Individually and on behalf of Proposed Class Members; Global Exchange, Plaintiffs, v. NESTLE, S.A.; Nestle U.S.A.; Nestle Ivory Coast; Archer Daniels Midland Co.; Cargill, Inc.; Cargill Cocoa; Cargill West Africa, S.A.; and Corporate Does 1-10, Defendants.

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. ¶ 59. {concurring). We have previously determined that negligent supervision claims against a religious body are barred in Wisconsin by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because of the threat of excessive entanglement between government and religion. L.L.N. v. Clauder, 209 Wis. 2d 674, 686-98, 563 N.W.2d 434 (1997); Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194 Wis. 2

ACCEPTED 03-15-00007-CV 4825837 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

MANSFIELD, Justice. A generation ago, in Johnson v. Charles City Community Schools Board of Education, 368 N.W.2d 74, 79 (Iowa 1985), we observed that the “state has a clear right to set minimum educational standards for all its children and a corresponding responsibility to see to it that those standards are honored.” Yet we also concluded that a “court is without either the resources or the expertise necessary” to dra

AMENDED ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, United States District Judge THIS CAUSE comes before the Court as a disability discrimination action brought pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq., the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3603, et seq., and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq. Plaintiffs are thirty-two deaf pers

CRANE, District Judge: Bobby J. Black sued North Panola School District, Bonnie Smith, Jesse Orange and Finis Sanders (collectively “NPSD”) asserting various claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of NPSD on all claims, and Bla

Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant, United States District Judge This is a suit brought by Arch Insurance Company ("Arch" or "Plaintiff") to enforce certain indemnity agreements issued by Centerplan Construction Company, LLC ("Centerplan"), Center Earth, LLC ("Center Earth") and certain affiliates (collectively "Defendants"). The indemnity agreements were issued in consideration for Arch's issuance of certain surety bonds. The bonds were issued

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MALAIKA LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 22-3369 (RDM) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case involves two separate encounters that Plaintiff Malaika Lewis and her minor daughter, Pl

460 F.3d 409 Robert Charles REULAND, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Charles J. HYNES, individually and in his capacity as District Attorney for the County of Kings, New York, Defendant-Appellant.Docket No. 04-5521-cv. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued: October 25, 2005. Decided: August 21, 2006. Eliza

Case: 19-14551 Date Filed: 02/19/2020 Page: 1 of 78 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-14551 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:19-cv-00

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Before the court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. (Mot. (Dkt. # 35).) This case arises from Defendant City of Marysville’s (“the City”) enforcement of certain local zoning regulations against two of Plaintiffs’ gro

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Individual School Defendant Melanie Romero’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint Based Upon Qualified Immunity, filed Nov. 13, 2012 (Doc. 113)(“Motion for Summary Judgment”). The Court held a hearing on December 20, 2012. The primary issues are: (i) whe

996 F.Supp. 409 (1998) ASSISTED LIVING ASSOCIATES OF MOORESTOWN, L.L.C., Laurel Construction Management, Inc., and John and Jane Doe, Plaintiffs, v. MOORESTOWN TOWNSHIP, Moorestown Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, and Moorestown Township Planning Board, Defendants. No. Civ.A. 97-4572. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. March 19, 1998. Opinion Deny

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PROJECT VERITAS; PROJECT No. 22-35271 VERITAS ACTION FUND, D.C. No. 3:20-cv- Plaintiffs-Appellants, 01435-MO v. OPINION MICHAEL SCHMIDT, in his official capacity as Multnomah County District Attorney; ELLEN ROSENBLUM, in her official capacity as Oregon Attorney General,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND AMENDED ORDER1 JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Martin Smith’s Motion for Summary Judgment Requesting Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Complaint on Qualified Immunity and Other Grounds, and Memorandum in Support, filed May 12, 2014 (Doc. ll)(“Motion”). The Court held a hearing on November 24, 2014. Th

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 1 JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Santa Fe Public Schools Board of Education’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 100], filed March 3, 2014 (Doc. 187) (“MSJ”). The Court held a hearing on April 8, 2014. The primary issues are: (i)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 1 JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant ASI New Mexico, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 100] and Supporting Memorandum, filed March 3, 2014 (Doc. 182)(“MSJ”). The Court held a hearing on April 22, 2014. The primary issue is whether Defendant

OPINION BY TODD, J.: ¶ 1 In these consolidated declaratory judgment actions, we decide whether two insurers, Donegal Mutual Insurance Company (“Donegal”) and United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”), have a duty to defend or indemnify their insureds for events that occurred on April 28, 2000. On that date, Richard Baumhammers (“Baumhammers”), the son of Andrejs and Inese Baumhammers (“Parents”), went

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JASON WOLFORD; ALISON No. 23-16164 WOLFORD; ATOM KASPRZYCKI; HAWAII FIREARMS COALITION, D.C. No. 1:23-cv-00265- Plaintiffs-Appellees, LEK-WRP v. OPINION ANNE E. LOPEZ, in her official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii,