Cases

(2008) CAUDILL SEED & WAREHOUSE CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. BRASSICA PROTECTION PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendant. Civil Action No. 07-464-C. United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division. February 27, 2008. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JENNIFER B. COFFMAN, District Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion of def

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS OF VARIOUS DEFENDANTS (NOS. 237, 238, 265, 281, 286, 288, 304, 337, AND 338) CHARLES M. CALDWELL, Bankruptcy Judge. On January 31, 2008, the Court conducted a hearing on the above-captioned Motions to Dismiss filed on behalf of nine Defendants (“Defendants”). The Motions raise essentially three issues: 1) The join-der of approximately 130 defendants is not prope

MEMORANDUM OPINION CHARLES R. SIMPSON III, SR., JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Broccoli has long been considered a side-dish, an afterthought to the entree. But in this case, broccoli — or, more specifically, broccoli seeds-is the main course. For several years, Jarrow Formulas, Inc., a maker of nutritional supplements, purchased broccoli seed extract from Caudill Seed and

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 23a0192p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT JOHN DOE, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ │

On the evening of April 9, 1982, defendant-appellant, Michael Caudill, was at the Dixie Electric Company, a bar located in Fairfield, Ohio. Appellant left the bar a little after 12:00 a.m. and proceeded to drive around the Fairfield area in a seemingly irregular and uncoordinated pattern, stopping several times and making various U-turns. At approximately 12:40 a.m., on April 10, 1982 appellant was driving north on Pleasant Avenue just south of Wessel Drive. Christy Puska was driving s

OPINION KOZINSKI, Chief Judge: The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) precludes state law class actions that allege misrepresentation or fraudulent omission in connection with the purchase or sale of covered securities. In this ease we answer the question on everyone’s lips: Does SLUSA displace class actions alleging breach of a

ORDER James Rocky Wright, a Kentucky prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals a district court judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a). On November 27, 2000, Wrig

SCOTT, Justice, concurring in result only opinion: I concur in the result of the majority’s opinion, but would add as to Issue III, that the amount of any offset is limited to the BRB actually “paid or payable” — meaning it has been, or will be paid. There is no offset for amounts that will not be paid. Such an effect was never the intention of KRS 304.39-060(2). See Slone v. Caudill, 734 S.W.2d 480

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LORETTA C. BIGGS, District Judge. Plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (“SFFA”), initiated this action against Defendants, the University of North Carolina and members of its board of governors, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and members of its board of trustees and various school officials (collectively "UNC-Chapel Hill”),1

FILED August 30, 2022 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGIN

ORDER RICHARD H. KYLE, United States District Judge In this action, Plaintiff Spencer Ung alleges that Defendant Universal Acceptance Corporation (“Universal”) made unauthorized calls to his cell phone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. Previously, the Court denied Universal’s Motion to Dismiss, concluding that a settlement offer by Universal

Pietrykowski, Judge. {¶ 1} This appeal concerns a February 11, 2010 judgment of the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of appel-lees, Clarence J. Diefenthaler and Ruth M. Diefenthaler, in a border dispute over the location of the common border between properties owned by them and adjoining property owned by appellants, Thomas Schuffenecker and Luan Schuf-fenecker. The properties are located

929 P.2d 718 (1996) Concerning the APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF HINES HIGHLANDS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and Aspen Highlands Mountain Limited Liability Company, in Pitkin County. ASPEN WILDERNESS WORKSHOP, INC.; Constance Harvey; and Joy and Samuel Caudill, Objectors-Appellants, v. HINES HIGHLANDS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and Aspen Highlands Mountain Limited Liability Company, Applicants-Appellees, and The City of Aspen; Board of County Commissi

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS Henrietta Stiltner and Wade Stiltner, Plaintiffs Below, Petitioners FILED July 30, 2020 vs.) No. 19-0126 (Wayne County 16-C-54) EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

RENDERED: AUGUST 9, 2024; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NOS. 2023-CA-1103-MR & 2023-CA-1140-MR COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, EX REL. ATTORNEY GENERAL RUSSELL COLEMAN APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE PHILLIP J. SHEPHERD, JUDGE

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS State of West Virginia, FILED Plaintiff Below, Respondent June 7, 2019 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF

[Cite as State v. Fox, 2015-Ohio-3515.] COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Patricia A. Dela

72 S.W.3d 925 (2002) Stephen E. BURTON, Appellant, v. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION; Donna Terry, Administrative Law Judge; Bonnie Kittinger, Former Presiding Arbitrator; and Workers' Compensation Board, Appellees. No. 2001-SC-0348-WC. Supreme Court of Kentucky. April 25, 2002. *926 Ray B. White, Bowling Green, for Appellant.

WALKER, Justice: Petitioner Brandon Flack appeals the August 24, 2015 order of the Circuit Court of Mercer County granting, in part, and denying, in part, his petition for habeas corpus. Petitioner alleges that the habeas court erred in (1) denying his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) denying habeas relief on the basis that the State knowingly introduced false evidence; and (3) denying habeas relief on the basi

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Mar 28 2018, 6:05 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of A