Cases

01/08/2018 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs November 28, 2017 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JEFFREY WAYNE HUGHES Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lawrence County No. 33792, 34049 Russell Parkes, Judge ___________________________________

MEMORANDUM ** Following their successful motion to remand this Montana property rights dispute to state court, Christopher A. Houden and Jeffrey Houden (“the Houdens”) appeal the denial of costs and fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Fees and costs may be awarded under § 1447(c) if the attempted removal was objectively unreasonable. See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141, 126 S.Ct. 704

MEMORANDUM ** Following their successful motion to remand this Montana property rights dispute to state court, Christopher A. Houden and Jeffrey Houden (“the Houdens”) appeal the denial of costs and fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Fees and costs may be awarded under § 1447(c) if the attempted removal was objectively unreasonable. See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141, 126 S.Ct. 704

791 N.E.2d 849 (2003) Edward BELL, M.D., McNeilar, Inc., Walgreens Company, Purepac Pharmaceutical, Co., Appellants-Defendants, v. Hirshell Lee LOLLAR, Appellee-Plaintiff. No. 22A01-0212-CV-475. Court of Appeals of Indiana. July 17, 2003. *850 Laurie Goetz Kemp, Elizabeth Ullmer Mendel, Alice Barns Herrington, Woodward Hobson &am;

734 F.Supp. 192 (1990) Lee HOFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 89-4405 (JCL). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. April 9, 1990. *193 Peter Goetz, Goetz, Fitzpatrick & Flynn, New York City, for plaintiff. Jeffrey S. Wilson, Pecker & Abramson, River Edge,

01/03/2025 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON June 20, 2023 Session LADON RELLIFORD v. JERRY BURKS ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-19-1717 Gadson W. Perry, Chancellor ___________________________________

550 P.2d 449 (1976) STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. David E. MICHENER, Respondent (Two Cases). State of Oregon, Appellant, v. Malvena Goetz, Respondent. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted April 20, 1976. Decided June 1, 1976. *450 Catherine Allan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for appellant. W

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION Lee H. Rosenthal, United States District Judge AXA Art Americas Corporation, an insurance company specializing in fine art, sued Public Storage, a storage-space company, asserting a subrogated claim for violating contract and tort duties allegedly owed AXA’s insureds, Edward J. Hudson and Robert L. Hudson. (Docket Entry No. 1). AXA sought at least $849,436.00 in actual damages for pai

312 S.W.3d 402 (2010) Ed ENGLISH by and through Carol S. DAVIS, Public Administrator of Taney County, Missouri, as Guardian and Conservator of Ed English, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward J. HERSHEWE and The Hershewe Law Firm, P.C., formerly Hershewe & Gulick, P.C., Defendants-Respondents. No. SD 30075. Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One. May 4, 2010.<

14 Cal.4th 394 (1996) RUBY ROSENTHAL et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. GREAT WESTERN FINANCIAL SECURITIES CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Appellants. Docket No. S050952. Supreme Court of California. December 12, 1996. *401 COUNSEL Morrison & Foerster, Shirley M. Hufstedler, Maren E. Nelson and David K. Barrett

554 F.Supp. 285 (1983) Carolee KOSTER, Plaintiff, v. CHASE MANHATTAN BANK and Allan Ross, Defendants. No. 81 Civ. 5018 (GLG). United States District Court, S.D. New York. January 7, 1983. *286 Kresky, Sinawski & Hollenberg by Gary Sinawski, New York City, for plaintiff. Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn by Morton M

METZNER, Senior District Judge: Vestron Promotions, Inc. (“Lightning”) appeals from an order denying its motion for a preliminary injunction barring The Video Trip Corporation (“VTC”) and Best Film & Video Corporation (“Best”) from producing and distributing certain travel video cassettes (“video”). On January 28, 1986, VTC entered into a written agreement with Lightning which granted Lightning the “excl

Decision & Order SPATT, District Judge: Presently before the Court in this § 1983 excessive force action are the Plaintiffs objections, lodged pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) 72(a), to a pretrial order of United States Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields. For the reasons that follow, those objections are overruled. I. Background

848 F.Supp. 602 (1994) In re CHAMBERS DEVELOPMENT SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: All Class Actions. Civ. A. No. 92-0679. MDL 982. United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania. February 23, 1994. *603 *604 *605

09/07/2021 DA 20-0514 Case Number: DA 20-0514 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2021 MT 221 PAUL WILKIE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a/k/a THE HARTFORD; RICHARD L. SPR

OPINION AND ORDER SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge: I. INTRODUCTION Luv n’ Care, Ltd. and Admar International, Inc. (collectively, “LNC”) bring this infringement action against Regent Baby Products Corp. d/b/a Baby King (“Regent”). LNC sells sippy cups and other products for children in the United States and internationally under the NUBY brand name, or through private la

OPINION LEE GABRIEL, Justice. Appellant Farm & Ranch Investors, Ltd. appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees Titan Operating, L.L.C. and individual lot owners Bruce D. Pfaff, Teresa M. Walter, David Novotny, Dennis J. Fegan II, Michael C. and Kris Aljoe, Jeffrey J. and Diane S. Brundage, John T. Eubanks Family Living Trust, Christopher M. and Nancy L. Holloway, and C.E. Bye

MEMORANDUM OPINION RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR EXPEDITED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (13-CV-1459: DOC. NO. 4; 13-CV-0303E: DOC. NO. 6) ARTHUR J. SCHWAB, District Judge. I. Introduction Presently before the Court are two cases which challenge the application of *580provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). Thes

MOORE, Circuit Judge. Simon Shiao Tam appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) affirming the examining attorney’s refusal to register the mark THE SLANTS because it is disparaging. We affirm. Background Mr. Tam is the “front man” for AsianAmeriean dance rock band The Slants. In

OPINION WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: At issue in this case is the scope of the protections afforded employers by § 8(b)(1)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act. That section makes it an unfair labor practice for unions to restrain or coerce employers in their selection of collective bargaining representatives and grievance adjusters. The appeal before us stems from charges of § 8(b)(1)(B) violations brought b