Cases

BYE, Circuit Judge. The government appeals the district court’s 1 twenty-month downward departure arguing it was not legally or factually supported. We affirm. I Beginning in January 2002, twenty-one-year-old Jason Lighthall, a student at Iowa State University, began col

PER CURIAM. Kayle Barrington Bates appeals the circuit court's order denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. Bates seeks relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in

707 S.E.2d 503 (2011) NEAL v. The STATE. No. A10A2326. Court of Appeals of Georgia. February 22, 2011. Reconsideration Denied March 18, 2011. *505 Jeffrey L. Grube, Centerville, for appellant. Kelly R. Burke, District Attorney, Jason E. Ashford, Venita S. McCoy, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.<

JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge: Papalote Creek II, LLC (Papalote) appeals the district court's order compelling Papalote to arbitrate a dispute raised by Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA)-whether their contractual agreement limits LCRA's liability to $60 million. The arbitration clause requires Papalote and LCRA to arbitrate "any dispute [that]

FILED September 16, 2025 C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA Patri

MELLOY, Circuit Judge. Appellants, property owners in Phase “A” of the River Ridge Park Subdivision (“the Subdivision”) in the City of Norfork, Arkansas, filed a declaratory judgment action against Jason Aamodt and Maria Aamodt (together, “the Aamodts”). Appellants allege that the Aamodts, who also own property in Phase “A” of the Subdivision, violated (and continue to violate)

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bridgette Neal appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her complaint without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispe

OPINION AND ORDER JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge. Pending before the Court are two derivative actions arising from the unprecedented losses experienced by Merrill Lynch & *333Co., Inc. (“Merrill”) as a result of its aggressive investment in collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”) and similar mortgage-backed securities in the

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JASON JACOBS, Appellant, v. DYCK-O'NEAL, INC., Appellee. No. 4D17-1181 [March 29, 2018] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; David Haime

MEMORANDUM ORDER JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge. In this massive litigation, arising from the huge losses experienced by Merrill Lynch & Co. (“Merrill”) in the period prior to its acquisition by Bank of America (“BofA”), two of the lawsuits — a consolidated action known as the Derivative Action, 07 Civ. 9696, and a later-filed action, Lambrecht v. O’Neal, originally filed a

ORDER on Defendants’ Rule 67 Motion FEUERSTEIN, United States District Judge I. Introduction On January 21, 2016, by letter motion and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67, the Defendants moved for permission to deposit funds with the Clerk of Court “consistent with the Rule 68 offer of judgment that [they] previously made to Plaintiffs.” (“Rule 67 Motion”; ECF No.

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-23-00322-CR No. 02-23-00323-CR ___________________________ Ex parte Jason Neal Delong On Appeal from the 462nd District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. F21-1211-462, F21-1212-462 Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Wallach, JJ. Opinion by Justice Wallach

OPINION AND ORDER FEUERSTEIN, District Judge. Defendants Basic Research, L.L.C., Zoller Laboratories, L.L.C., Dennis Gay, Daniel Mowrey and Mitchell Friedlander (“Basic Research defendants”) move to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(1) and (6) and to strike certain paragraphs in the FAC pursuant to FRCP 12(f); defendants Dennis Gay, Daniel

OPINION • Bailey C. Moseley, Justice 1. Background In 2008, oil and gas companies descended on east Texas and Louisiana seeking to acquire leases to exploit the Haynesville Shale formation, which they viewed as having enormous potential. The atmosphere created by these companies was described as “unreal,” “a land rush,” and compa

Matter of Jason A. (Maritza L.G.) (2019 NY Slip Op 08560) Matter of Jason A. (Maritza L.G.) 2019 NY Slip Op 08560 Decided on November 27, 2019 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Report

OPINION AND ORDER JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge. Before the Court are a large number of related actions arising from the huge losses experienced by Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (“Merrill”) as a result of its aggressive investment in collateralized debt obligations and similar mortgage-backed securities. The actions were originally assigned to the Honorable Leonard B. Sand, who divided most of

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT JASON L. BERRY, ) ) Appellant, ) WD82440 v. ) )

PER CURIAM. In this case, we consider whether the defendants satisfied the first element of the Craddock test for setting’ aside a no-answer default judgment. See Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (1939) (requiring a new trial if the defendant shows (1) that the default was neither intentional nor the

OPINION Motiva Enterprises L.L.C. ("Motiva") petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to vacate its order of June 6, 2007, which permitted extensive discovery pertaining to Motiva's "crude expansion project." The sole reason given by real parties in interest for their discovery request regarding the crude expansion project is their claim for "future" damages under their cause of action for permanent nuisance. We have this day

FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT JUNE 8, 2023 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SUPREME COURT