Cases

NORTHCUTT, Judge. A jury convicted Paul Fournier of attempted robbery and battery. We affirm his battery conviction without discussion, but reverse his conviction for attempted robbery. The victim testified that she was driving home from work and had stopped at a traffic sign in her employer’s parking lot. She noticed Fournier standing across the street. He appeared to be speaking to her, so she reached o

OPINION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WHEELER, Judge. On October 9, 2013, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Jonathan L. Kaplan’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On November 7, 2013, Mr. Kaplan filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59 of the Rules of the U.S. Court

Spina, J. In these appeals by the Commissioner of Revenue (commissioner) and now before us on his applications for direct appellate review, we consider how interest on tax refunds owed to the estate of Emile L. Fournier (Fournier estate) and to Fleet National Bank (Fleet)3 (collectively, the taxpayers) is properly calculated under G. L. c. 62C, § 40, as amended through St. 2003, c. 26, § 197.

520 F.Supp.2d 343 (2007) DATA CAPTURE SOLUTIONS-REPAIR & REMARKETING, INC., Plaintiff, v. SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES, INC, Defendant. Civil Action No. 07CV237 JCH. United States District Court, D. Connecticut. October 18, 2007. *344 *345 Eliot B. Gersten, John Henry Van Lenten, Gersten & Clif

(2008) TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Counterclaim Plaintiffs, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Fournier Industrie Et Sante and Laboratoires Fournier S.A., Counterclaim Defendants. Impax Laboratories, Inc., Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. Abbott Laboratories, Fournier Industrie Et Sante and Laboratoires Fournier S.A., Counterclaim Defendants. In re Tricor Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation. In re

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Presently before the court is plaintiffs’ Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc. (“LWD”), Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. (“RDC”) and Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc. (together, “Meijer”) (collec*220tively, the “direct purchaser plaintiffs” or the (“proposed DP

362 B.R. 663 (2007) In re VII HOLDINGS COMPANY, Debtor. No. 06-10935 (BLS). United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware. February 22, 2007. *664 David M. Fournier, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Wilmington, DE, for Cambridge Properties, LLC and Southbridge Savings Bank. MEMORANDUM OPINION[1] BRENDAN LINEH

432 F.Supp.2d 408 (2006) ABBOTT LABORATORIES, an Illinois corporation, Fournier Industrie et Sante, a French corporation, and Laboratoires Fournier S.A., a French corporation, Plaintiffs, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, an Israeli corporation, and Novopharm, Ltd., a Canadian corporation, Counterclaim— Plaintiff

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA FILED January 2025 Term April 16, 2025 released at 3:00 p.m. C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK

SAUFLEY, C.J., concurring. [¶ 24] I join the Court’s opinion, and I write separately to emphasize that variations and ambiguities in the application of legislatively established time frames for appeal in state and local administrative laws may create confusion for both proponents and opponents of particular administrative actions, and contribute significantly to increased costs and delay in such appeals.

PER CURIAM [¶1] Erica H. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Bangor, Jordan, J. ) terminating her parental rights to her child1 pursuant to *119922 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a) and (b)(i)-(ii) (2018). She contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the court's findings of parental u

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-01-405-CV SITQ E.U., INC., SITQ HOLDINGS APPELLANTS (U.S.), INC., CANDEREL CORP., AND JONATHAN WENER V.

SITQ et al. v. Reata et al. COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-01-405-CV SITQ E.U., INC., SITQ HOLDINGS APPELLANTS (U.S.), INC

OPINION O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: We must decide whether the Second Amendment prohibits a local government from banning gun shows on its property. I A Russell and Sallie Nordyke operate a business that promotes gun shows throughout California. A typical gun show involves the display and sale of thousands of firearms, generally ranging from pistols

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ══════════ NO. 18-0932 ══════════ EX PARTE E.H. ══════════════════════════════════════════ ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS ══════════════════════════════════════════

986 F.Supp. 841 (1997) OLIN CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, et al., Defendants. No. 84 Civ.1968(TPG). United States District Court, S.D. New York. December 24, 1997. Jerold Oshinsky, Stephen A. Dvorkin, Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, New York City, Joseph C. Garni, Chief Counsel, Olin Corp., Norwalk, CT, for Olin Corp. <

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ══════════ No. 18-1041 ══════════ IN RE COLTON LESTER, RELATOR ══════════════════════════════════════════ ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ══════════════════════════════════════════ JUSTICE BLACKLOCK, joined by JUSTICE BOYD as to Part I only,

*338Opinion WILLHITE, Acting P. J . Defendant Ruben Rene Amperano appeals from a judgment sentencing him to 50 years to life in prison, after a jury found him guilty of attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) and shooting at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246), and found to be true allegations that defend

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 20a0214p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT JOAN ELIZABETH WESER, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ │

RULING ON MOTION TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT TO GRANT LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND OTHER RELIEF [DOC. # 218] ARTERTON, District Judge. On August 21, 2006, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6), the Court dismissed the securities fraud class action complaint in this action, brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promul