Cases

Tufte, Justice. [¶ 1] Missouri River Royalty Corporation and Bauer Family LLP appeal a district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants, most of whom are members of the Brokaw family (collectively “Brokaw”). On cross motions for sum *502 mary judgment, the district court quieted ti

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTIONS Marvin J. Garbis, United States District Judge The Court has before it Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 40], Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 52], and the materials submitted relating thereto. The Court has reviewed the exhibits, considered the declarations submitted by the parties, held a hearing, and has had

ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Sammie G. Byrd appeals the dismissal of his Title VII complaint for failure to effect timely service. Because court officers are required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) “to issue and serve all process” when a party is proceeding in forma pauperis, we vacate the order of dismissal and remand the case to district court. I.

BOGGS, Justice. Plaintiff RES-GA McDonough, LLC (“RES-GA”) brought this legal malpractice action against Taylor English Duma LLP and two of its attorneys (collectively, “Taylor English”). RES-GAcontends that Taylor English failed to timely assert a Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act claim, thus damaging RES-GA’s ability to satisfy its judgment against a debtor. Taylor English moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that RES-G

PER CURIAM. Petitioner, Elizabeth Kates, seeks a writ of prohibition following an order denying her motion' to disqualify the trial judge. Upon review of the verified motion, we conclude that Petitioner is entitled to the writ. According to Petitioner, the judge made the following comments in court, without a court reporter, at the start of, during, and at the conclusion of the hearing for temporary alimo

189 F.Supp.2d 1088 (2001) Brian E. ROHRBOUGH, Susan A. Petrone, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Daniel Rohrbough, deceased, Donald F. Fleming, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Kelly Fleming, deceased, Diedra A. Fleming, Joseph R. Kechter, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Matthew Joseph Kechter, deceased, Ann Marie Kechter, Dawn L. Anna, individually and as personal repre

ORME, Judge: ¶1 Gary and Pamela Schleger appeal the district court's decision dismissing their medical malpractice and wrongful death action against the State and the Utah State Hospital (collectively, the State). The court concluded that, while the Schlegers had successfully complied with the prelitigation claims-review requirements of the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act (the HCMA),

*303OPINION WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.: Plaintiff Inserra Supermarkets, Inc. (“Inserra”) brings eight federal and state antitrust and tort claims against The Stop & Shop Supermarket, Co. (“the Defendant”). The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges that Defendant acted for anticompetitive reasons to prevent Inserra from opening a Shop-

OPINION Opinion by: SANDEE BRYAN MARION, Justice. In this appeal, Arthur and Enedelia Martinez (“the Martinezes”) challenge the trial court’s “Order Granting Grandparent Possession or Access Contemporaneous to Adoption” in favor of Gloria Estrada. The circumstances of this case are unfortunate because they pit the paternal grandmothe

600 F.Supp.2d 940 (2009) Melinda MAHER, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, a corporation, and Kate Dutrow, an individual, Defendants. Case No. 1:08-cv-212. United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division. March 5, 2009. *942 William F. Piper, William F. Piper PLC, Portage, MI, for Plaintiff. Kalyn D.

Opinion STONE (S. J.), J.* J.*Fairview Neighbors and Tom Schleve (Fairview) appeal from the order of the trial court denying their petition for writ of administrative mandate. Fairview challenges the approval by respondent, the Ventura County (County) Board of Supervisors (Board), of the conditional use permit (CUP) to expand the mining operation of real party and respondent, Southd

FLOYD, Circuit Judge: The False Claims Act (FCA) empowers private individuals acting on behalf of the government to bring civil actions against those that defraud the government. The FCA contains a provision, known as the “fírst-to-file” rule, which bars these private individuals, known as- relators, from bringing actions under the FCA while a related action is pending. In this case, back before this Court for a third time, we

Riordan, J. Defendants appeal by leave granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the immediate effect of House Bill 4246 (HB 4246) and House Bill 4929 (HB 4929). We granted appellants’ application for leave to appeal and motion for immediate consideration. We stayed the trial court’s order and further proceedings pending the resolution of this appeal. Because plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or for a reargument denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Finch, P. J., Merrell, McAvoy, Martin and Townley, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Thomas v. Singletary, 24 Fla. L. Weekly S26, 729 So.2d 369 (Fla.1998). STONE, C.J., FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Finch, P. J., Merrell, McAvoy, Martin and Townley, JJ.

161 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 647 (1994) 638 A.2d 299 Gerald C. GRIMAUD, Anna G. Kroptavich, widow of Joseph Kroptavich, and Irene Kitchnefsky, Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, Respondent. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Argued December 17, 1993. Decided February 4, 1994. *649 Gerald C

Mr. Justice Jett delivered the opinion of the court. This suit was instituted by the appellant, Christopher Harrigan, in his individual capacity and also as the administrator of the estate of Kate Harrigan, deceased. He filed his bill to the January term, 1921, of the circuit court of Peoria county, against William E. Stone, appellee, as sole defendant for an ac

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Although the remedies set out in the trial court’s final judgment of dissolution may not have been the remedies this court would have fashioned, we cannot say that those remedies are not within the discretion granted the trial court. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ., and FENNELLY, JOHN E., Associate Judge, concur.

ACCEPTED 15-24-00095-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/3/2025 12:00 AM Court of Appeals Number: 15-24-00095-CV CHRI