Cases

499 So.2d 482 (1986) Billy Joe HARRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Betty DANIELS and Horace Mann Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee. No. 18176-CA. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit. December 3, 1986. Writ Denied January 30, 1987. Richie & Richie by Byron A. Richie, Shreveport, for Billy Jo Harrell. Mayer, Smith & Roberts by

Opinion issued March 4, 2021 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-20-00674-CV ——————————— IN RE EDUARDO DEL PINO, SPRING DEL PINO, ROBERT RUGGLES, GLORIA RUGGLES, ROBERT DAWKINS, DEMETRIA DAWKINS, EDDIE DELANEY, JENNIFER DELANEY, LEROY DELK, CAROLE DELK, MARTI

386 F.Supp.2d 700 (2005) Christopher BACON, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF RICHMOND, et al., Defendants. No. CIV. 3:05CV425-HEH. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. September 7, 2005. *701 *702 David Denman Hopper, Cook Heyward Lee Hopper & Feehan PC, Richmond, V

245 F.Supp.2d 1109 (2003) SIERRA CLUB, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (USDOT); Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta; Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); Administrator of FHWA Mary Peters; Division Administrator of FHWA Nevada Division, John Price, Defendants. No. CV-S-02-0578-PMP(RJJ). United States District Court, D. Nevada. February 14, 2003.

310 F.Supp.2d 1168 (2004) SIERRA CLUB, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (USDOT); Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta; Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); Administrator of FHWA Mary Peters; Division Administrator of FHWA Nevada Division, John Price, Defendants. No. CV-S-02-0578-PMP RJJ. United States District Court, D. Nevada. March 11, 2004.

60 Cal.Rptr.3d 559 (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1029 Sharon D. DINA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The PEOPLE ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant and Respondent. No. B190432. Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two. June 5, 2007. *563 Law Offices of Michael B. Montgomery,

264 F.3d 344 (3rd Cir. 2001) IN RE: ORTHOPEDIC BONE SCREW PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 1014)J.T. Bradley and Kathy W. Bradley, Appellants in No. 00-3899Regina M. Luellen and Eurston Luellen, Sr., Appellants in No. 00-3900Randal Jon Uribe, Appellant in No. 00-3901Mitchell H. Walker and Kim S. Walker, Appellants in No. 00-3902Jose Morfin, Appellant in No. 00-3903Mary K. Mullen Schmelter and Kurt Allen Schmelter, Appel

891 So.2d 353 (2002) Gary Frank KEY v. STATE of Alabama. CR-99-0220. Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama. March 1, 2002. Opinion on Return to Remand May 31, 2002. Rehearing Denied January 24, 2003. *359 Warren Freeman, Delta, for appellant. William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and David R.

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,

W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), Pub.L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), authorizes the removal to federal court of “mass actions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(ll)(A), (B). “Mass actions” are civil actions in which “monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims involve common ques

903 F.Supp. 532 (1995) The STATE OF NEW YORK, by Attorney General Dennis C. VACCO, et al., Plaintiff, v. REEBOK INTERNATIONAL LTD., et al., Defendants. No. 95 Civ. 3143 (JGK). United States District Court, S.D. New York. October 20, 1995. Pamela Jones Harbour, Joseph Opper, Linda J. Gargiulo, Assistant Attorneys General, New York City, for State of New York and loca

FILED 15-0547 7/24/2015 5:49:28 PM tex-6223072 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK

OPINION OF THE COURT REAVLEY, Circuit Judge. This Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) claim against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for granting clearance to market certain types of pedicle screw fixation devices (referred to generally as bone screws) was dismissed by the District Court pursuant to the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.1 Appellants contend here that