Cases

111 Ill.2d 341 (1986) 490 N.E.2d 4 KATHLEEN CASEY et al., Appellees, v. DAVID BASEDEN et al., Appellants. No. 61698. Supreme Court of Illinois. Opinion filed February 21, 1986. *342 *343 Richard A. Green and Michael F. Dahlen, of Feirich, Schoen, Mager, Green & Asso

131 Ill. App.3d 716 (1985) 475 N.E.2d 1375 KATHLEEN CASEY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DAVID BASEDEN et al., Defendants-Appellants. No. 5-84-0259. Illinois Appellate Court — Fifth District. Opinion filed March 7, 1985. *717 *718 Michael F. Dahlen and Richard A. Gree

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT IN RE: THE THIRTY-FIVE STATEWIDE : No. 175 MM 2014 INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : : : PETITION OF: ATTORNEY GENERAL : KATHLEEN G. KANE : ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 26th day o

L SAUNDERS, Judge. Plaintiffs and defendant appeal the judgment of the trial court awarding Scott Pias $38,234.50, for termination without cause by The Carmouche Law Firm (“TCLF”) and payment for work performed for the firm from October 1, 1996 to December 6, 1996, and awarding TCLF $6,102.02 based on the calculation found in a Shareholders Agreement addressing the redemption of shares upon a shareholder’s termination. TCLF

330 F.3d 548 The OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS OF CYBERGENICS CORPORATION, on Behalf of CYBERGENICS CORPORATION, Debtor in Possession, Appellantv.*Kathleen CHINERY, Executrix of the Estate of Scott Chinery; L&S Research Corporation; Lincolnshire Management Inc.; Lincolnshire Equity Fund, L.P. No. 01-3805. United States Court

BACKGROUND International Insurance Company (International) filed a declaratory judgment action in the circuit court of Cook County against the City of Chicago Heights, several of its employees, and one of its agents (collectively Chicago Heights) on December 9, 1988. It sought a declaration of its obligations under a public officials and employees liability policy issued to Chicago Heights. Specifically, International sought a determination of its liability to indemnify Chica

678 F.Supp.2d 437 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jose R. TELLEZ, Lazara Tellez, and GECU, Defendants. No. EP-08-CV-303-KC. United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division. July 13, 2009. *438 Jon E. Fisher, Department of Justice, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff. David P. Leeper, David P. Leeper, Attorn

93 F.Supp.2d 1343 (2000) Steven LOFTON; Douglas E. Houghton, Jr.; John Doe and John Roe, minor children, by and through their next friend, Timothy Arcaro; Angela Gilmore; Wayne Larue Smith; Daniel Skahen; Brenda Lynn Bradley; and Gregory Dale Bradley, Plaintiffs, v. Robert A. BUTTERWORTH, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Florida; Kathleen A. Kearney, Secretary of Florida's Department of Children and Families; Robert Pappas, District Administ

FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Safety National Casualty Corporation and Hudson Insurance Company brought a diversity suit against the City of Chicago Heights seeking a declaration of non-coverage for losses suffered by Chicago Heights as a re-suit of a settlement in an underlying civil-rights discrimination case. The district court granted Hudson and Safety’s joint motion for summary judgment, and we now affirm. I.

667 N.W.2d 405 (2003) In re SILICONE IMPLANT INSURANCE COVERAGE LITIGATION. Nos. C5-01-1546, C3-01-1738, C3-01-1741, C5-01-1742, C4-01-1747, C6-01-1748, C4-01-1778, C9-01-1811, C0-01-1812, C1-01-1821, C4-01-1828, C6-01-1829, C8-01-1850, C2-01-1861, C4-01-1862, C7-01-1869, C6-01-1894, CX-01-1896, C1-01-1897, C9-01-1906; C3-01-1917, C3-01-1920, C7-01-1922, C2-01-1925, C3-01-1965. Supreme Court of Minnesota.<

361 F.Supp.2d 1171 (2005) John DOE, a Minor, (born 01/28/90) by his Next Friend, Jane Doe, and Jane, Doe, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. David KEALA, Defendant. No. CIV.00-00044 ACK/KSC. United States District Court, D. Hawai'i. February 11, 2005. *1172 *1173 Stanley E. Levin, Davis Levin Living

On motion of F. Aaron Negangard, Chief Deputy Attorney General of the State of Indiana, and Cathleen M. Shrader, President of the State Board of Law Examiners, both members of the Bar of this Court, each applicant named in Exhibit A is by Order of this Court now duly sworn and admitted to practice as an attorney at law, and their respective names are ordered entered upon the Roll of Attorneys of this Court in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Cou

FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Two named plaintiffs in a class action appeal a consent decree entered in a Voting Rights case as violative of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Because the parties to the consent decree lacked the authority to assent to it, and the requisite findings of federal law violations necessary for the district court to approve the decree were not established, we now vacate that d

Justice ST ARCHER delivered the Opinion of the Court. STARCHER, J. In this declaratory judgment action between an insurance company and its insureds from the Circuit Court of Mercer County, the circuit court certifies a question concerning the validity of certain insurance policy language. The language permits the insurance company to seek “reimbursement” of medical payments, made to an insured, from the ins

OPINION BY SHOGAN, J.: Appellant, Tillie F. Fulton, as Adminis-tratrix de bonis non cum testamento an- nexo 1 (“Administratrix”) of the estate of her mother-in-law, Fern 0. Fulton (“Decedent”), appeals from the January 22, 2014 order of the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas dism

MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judge. Appellants Donald and Janet Metcalf were the primary financial backers of a start-up company named Adbox, Inc. In 1998, the Metcalfs agreed to sell their interest in Adbox to Christer Wernerdal, but Wernerdal soon failed to make payments required by the sales agreements. Wernerdal brought a lawsuit against the Metcalfs and later took Adbox int

ELED MAR 07 202 139 Nev., Advance Opinion 57 ELI7 "TH A. BR CLER1 OF 'U lEME URT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

OPINION OF THE COURT Per Curiam. Petitioner moved to suspend respondents on the ground that they violated Judiciary Law § 468-a and 22 NYCRR 118.1 by failing to comply with attorney registration requirements. Petitioner alleged in support of the motion that respondents failed to respond to numerous written notices concerning their delinquency sent by the Office of Court Administration and by petitioner. This

GEE, Circuit Judge: Today’s case presents the question whether employees whose collective bargaining agreements are rejected in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy are entitled to future wages and benefits as contract rejection damages under 11 U.S.C. § 502(g). Recognizing that the agreements here at issue do not guarantee employment, we hold that the difference between the wages and benefits set out in the agreements and the wages an

FILED June 3, 2026 released at 3:00 p.m. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS