Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JOHNSON & JOHNSON : HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS INC., : Plaintiff, : : v. : : Civil Action No.: 24-3188 (RC) ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2022-IA-00158-SCT MISSISSIPPI BAPTIST HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. v. MARY A. JOHNSON DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/07/2022 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LARITA M. COOPER-STOKES TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: MALLORY M. STREET EUGENE R. NAYLOR YANCY B. BURNS

OPINION MCKEIG, Justice. In this case, two long-established rules come together. First, in a negligence case, when the issue of reasonable foreseeability of the injury is close, it should be decided by the jury. Second, on a motion for summary judgment, all facts and the inferences arising from them must be considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Here, appellant

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NARGUESS NOOHI, individually, No. 23-55190 and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-03575- Plaintiff-Appellee, TJH-JEM v. OPINION JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Defendant-Appellant. Ap

MEMORANDUM BUCKWALTER, Senior District Judge. Currently pending before the .Court are: (1) a Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Bonide. Products, Inc.; (2) a Second Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Nationwide Chemical Products, Inc.; and (3) First and Second Motions for Summary Judgment by Defendant NCP of Northwest Ohio, Inc. For the following reasons, the Motions are denied.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE, GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND PERMITTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This case is about a washing machine and the products liability suit it inspired. After years of use, the plaintiffs allege that they found their washer had developed a “biofilm” that rui

311 F.Supp.2d 1353 (2004) HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Plaintiff, v. HERBAL HEALTH PRODUCTS, INC., Dynamic Health Products, Inc., Innovative Companies, Inc., and Online Meds Rx, Inc., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 103CV2486WBH. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. March 1, 2004. *1354 Michael Joseph Powell, Ba

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 23-3902 (RDM) XAVIER BECERRA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Elevance Health, Inc. (formerly, Anthe

[Cite as Johnson v. Cincy Automall, Inc., 2024-Ohio-5749.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY SANDRA JOHNSON, : CASE NO. CA2024-02-033 Appellant, :

ORDER RAYMOND P. MOORE, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on Defendant Cequent Performance Products, Inc.’s (“Cequent”) motion to set aside the default entry (ECF No. 42) and its motion to compel arbitration (ECF No. 29). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to set aside the default entry and GRANTS, in part, Defendant’s motion to

Second, petitioners argue that both bills were implemented before federal approval, or even the possibility of federal approval, because they were implemented before they were submitted to CMS. Dkt. 69 at 23-24. Petitioners argue that "CMS did not approve any of the rate cuts until October 27, 2011, well after the date that both rate cuts had already been repealed by the California Legislature." Id. at 23. Respondents argue "that t

ORDER JOAN N. ERICKSEN, District Judge. On September 16, 2011, a jury found Defendant Mineo Products, Inc. (“Mineo”) not liable to Plaintiff Douglas Milhauser on Milhauser’s claims under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”), 38 U.S.C. § 4312 (2006). Milhauser claimed that Mineo violated USERRA by discriminating against him and by failing to properly reemploy him after he r

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 22-2970 _____________ CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE, INC.; PETER CORDI; RAELYNNE MILLER; KAYLA MATEO; ADRIANA PINTO; JAKE BOTHE; ANTHONY LAMANCUSA; JESSICA MOORE; RYAN SANDOR; GIANNA CORALLO; RYAN FARRELL; SEBASTIAN BLASI; MAGGIE HORN; LINDSAY MANCINI,

OPINION OF THE COURT Marcy Friedman, J. This residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) breach of contract action is the current incarnation of the dismissed action that was the subject of the Court of Appeals’ recent decision in ACE Sec. Corp., Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-SL2 v DB Structured Prods., Inc. (25 NY3d 581 [2015] [ACE *34

S. Fastening Sys., Inc. v. Grabber Constr. Products, Inc., 2015 NCBC 40. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE 14 CVS 04260 SOUTHERN FASTENING SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, ORDER AND OPINION ON v.

Opinion by Judge REINHARDT; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge THOMAS. Prior Report: 207 F.3d 599. ORDER Part VIII B of the opinion, concerning front pay damages, has been amended. OPINION REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: Defendant, Johnson and Johnson Consumer Products, Inc. (hereinafter CPI), a subsidiary of Johnson &a;

Opinion issued February 6, 2014 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-13-00690-CV ——————————— ROBERT LASSER, Appellant V. AMISTCO SEPARATION PRODUCTS, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 125th Distr

ORDER NEIL V. WAKE, District Judge. Before the Court are the “Dyson Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b)” (Doc. 19) and “Cornucopia’s 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss and Alternative 12(f) Motion to Strike” (Doc. 37). For the reasons stated below, the Court will: (i) deny Cornucopia’s motion to dismiss as moot; (ii) deny Cornucopia’s alternative motion to strike on its merits; (

Gordon McCloud ¶1 Homer L. Gibson applied to Kittitas County for a conditional use permit (CUP) that *740would allow him to conduct rock crushing and other gravel and cement production related activities on his agricultural-zoned property. Kittitas issued a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, and gav

OPINION OF THE COURT Carol Robinson Edmead, J. In this defamation action by plaintiff Deer Consumer Products, Inc. (Deer), defendant Alfred Little (Little) (appearing pseudonymously) seeks (1) to dismiss the complaint against him pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction and (2) to appear and/or proceed anonymously. Factual Background Deer, a N