Cases

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE, United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana This matter comes before us on cross Motions for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Larry Kemp and Brian Woodring and by Defendant David Liebel. Dkt. Nos. 48 and 57, respectively. Plaintiffs, prisoners within the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”), seek

ORDER Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge This matter involves a challenge to Indiana’s civil forfeiture statute, specifically as it applies to the seizure and pre-forfeiture retention of vehicles. Plaintiff Leroy Washington, on behalf of himself and a putative class of plaintiffs, contends that Indiana’s statute violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Cons

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE This litigation challenges the constitutionality of Indiana Code § 7.1-7-1 et seq., which places certain requirements on the manufacture of e-liquids used in e-devices sold in Indiana. Petitioners Legato Vapors, LLC, Jet Setter Juice LLC, Rocky Mourn tain Ecigs LLC, and Derb E Cigs Indiana LLC and the Intervenor-Petitioner, the Right to Be Smoke-Free C

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER RICHARD L. YOUNG, CHIEF JUDGE, United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana GoodCat LLC, the Plaintiff, challenges the constitutionality of certain requirements that Indiana Code § 7.1-7-1 et seq. (the “Indiana Act” or the “Act”) imposes on manufacturers of electronic vapor liquids (“e-liquids”) who wish to sell their products in India

JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge: This appeal arises out of the sale and public re-sale by auction of a well-known Mark Rothko painting. The painting’s original owner, Marguerite Hoffman, argues that she was fraudulently induced into selling the painting with assurances of secrecy and that the eventual public re-sale of the painting constituted a breach of a confidentiality

ORDER AND REASONS SARAH S. VANCE, District Judge. Before the Court is defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 116). For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. I. Background This case arises out of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The storm struck southern Louisiana and Mississippi in late August of 2005, causing damage

767 N.W.2d 656 (2009) 423 Mich. 1134 LEASE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vinson ABEL, Defendant, and Andrew Asman, James Humenik, Alan B. Thompson, Arnold Wilson, Jose Duarte, Juan D. Duarte, Warren G. Jafvert, Greg McCue, Mai V. Hoang, Jeff Nagy, Tuan V. Vo, David Bramlet, William Wilkinson, and Elizabeth Wilson, Defendants-Appellants. Lease Acceptance Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. S

182 Mich. App. 285 (1990) 451 N.W.2d 603 SPAULDING v. LESCO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Docket No. 99524. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided February 6, 1990. Goodman, Lister, Seikaly & Peters, P.C. (by Richard M. Goodman, Jonathan L. Walker, and Thomas W. Stephens), for plaintiffs. Ulanoff, Ross & Wesley,

DiPENTIMA, C.J. *665 The defendant, Dennis Berrios, appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 3a-55 (a) (1), tampering with a witness in violation of General Statutes § 53a-151 (a), intimidati

ORDER AND REASONS SARAH S. VANCE, District Judge. Qui tam plaintiffs move to strike Fidelity’s Third-Party Complaint against its policyholders. (R. Doc. 253). Because Fidelity’s claims do not meet the appropriate standard under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and because third-party practice is considerably restricted in False Claims Act actions, the motion is GRANTED.

ORDER AND REASONS SARAH S. VANCE, District Judge. In this False Claims Act case arising out of Hurricane Katrina, defendants American Reliable Insurance Company, Standard Fire Insurance Company, Colonial Claims Corporation, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, SIMSOL Insurance Services, Inc., American National Property & Casualty Company (“ANPAC”), Fidelity National Insurance Compan

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: *289This case concerns an alleged conspiracy among the world's largest banks to fix prices in the foreign exchange ("FX") market. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased FX instruments from retail FX dealers ("Retail Dealers") at prices that were artificially inflated on account of Defendants' manipulation of t

[Cite as S&T Bank, Inc. v. Advance Merchant Servs., 2024-Ohio-4757.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO S&T BANK, INC., : APPEAL NO. C-230448 TRIAL NO. A-2102471 Plaintiff-Appellant, : vs. : O P I N I O

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KAREN STROMBERG; SAMUEL No. 19-15159 ROECKER; THOMAS LAMMEL; MARY GALLOWAY; DANIELLE LAGRAVE; D.C. No. THOMAS MCMAHON; BOARDSPORTS 5:17-md-02773- SCHOOL LLC; PATRICK BENAD; LHK LINDSEY CARR; RENEE ACOSTA; PATRICIA BURNESS; CAROL HARRIS; ROBERT LINKS; NICHELLE LYONS; OPINION NUALA VIGNOLES; RACHEL L. MILLER; JOHN WILLIAM KIEFER III; MATTHEW MITCHELL; SUSAN

171 F.Supp.2d 473 (2001) PROTOCOMM CORP., Plaintiff, v. NOVELL ADVANCED SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 98-3819. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. September 26, 2001. *474 *475 David Smith, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Phila, PA, Christina Rainville, Jeannette

385 F.Supp.2d 449 (2004) CONTINUING CREDITORS' COMMITTEE OF STAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS INC., Plaintiff, v. Christopher EDGECOMB, et al., Defendants. No. Civ.A.03-278-KAJ. United States District Court, D. Delaware. December 21, 2004. *450 *451 Joseph A. Rosenthal, Kevin Gross, Rosenthal, Monhait,

OPINION STRINE, Vice Chancellor. This is a derivative action brought in the name of Oracle Corp., a Delaware corporation. The Oracle stockholders who filed this action as derivative plaintiffs now seek to dismiss this action voluntarily, over the objection of Oracle’s “Special Litigation Committee,” which has been empowered to investigate and decide whether to prosecute this action. By their dismissal mot

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION SEAN H. LANE, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Before the Court are numerous motions in the above-captioned insurance coverage dispute. Four defendants filed a variety of motions seeking to dismiss the case for, among other things, lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction, and to send the dispute to arbitration.1 These four defendants, which will be co

ORINDA D. EVANS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *1229Table of Contents I. The Case on Remand...1230 II. Preliminary Matters...1236 III. FAIR USE ANALYSIS FOR INDIVIDUAL INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS...1239 A. Professor Kaufmann...1239

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RUBY WAGNER, on behalf of herself ) and all other similarly situated ) stockholders of BRP GROUP, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2023-0150-JTL ) BRP GROUP, INC., )