Cases

BERGER, J. This case involves a medical malpractice action filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Appellant and cross-appellee, Enzo Martinez (“Martinez”), a minor, by and through his parents,1 alleged that appellee and cross-appellant, The Johns Hopkins Hospital (“the Hospital”), negligently failed to perform a timely Caesarean section, causing Martinez to suffer from cerebral palsy, retar

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SAFFELS, District Judge. This matter is before the court on plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 8). The defendants filed a cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 11). The court has reviewed the parties’ motions and supporting memoranda and is ready to rule. I. INTRODUCTION The facts of the case are undisputed. On Octobe

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 17-OCT-2024 08:12 AM Dkt. 32 OAWST NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

793 P.2d 703 (1990) 117 Idaho 1030 Shirley BOWLING, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Carl Ruthford Bowling, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JACK B. PARSON COMPANIES, a Utah Corporation, Defendant-Respondent. No. 17893. Supreme Court of Idaho. June 1, 1990. *704 McDermott, Zoll

710 A.2d 362 (1998) 121 Md. App. 516 Carol Sue HUNT, Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles Dell'uomo v. MERCY MEDICAL CENTER, et al. No. 1476, Sept. Term, 1997. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. May 29, 1998. *363 *364 Marvin Ellin (Michael P. Smith and E

Keith, P., delivered tlie opinion of the court. This was an action of trespass on the case in assumpsit^ brought by O. M. Gibbons for the benefit of Mary E. Kloeber, plaintiff, against the executors of Goodell to recover 1469.18, for the price of a certain bill of lumber sold to the defendants’ testator in his life time. The plaintiffs in error, who were the defendants in the court below, in the petiti

857 F.Supp. 65 (1994) Thomas PORTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Governor Joan FINNEY, et al., Defendants. No. 77-3045-RDR. United States District Court, D. Kansas. June 28, 1994. Jouett Edgar Arney, pro se. Roger M. Theis, Wichita, KS, for Jouett Edgar Arney. William J. Rich, Washburn Law School, Stephen W. Kessler, Topeka, KS, Dwight A. Corrin, Wichita, K

OPINION BROTMAN, District Judge. Presently before the court are three motions, two by defendant A.H. Robins, and one by plaintiff Marcie Thoma. Defendant makes a motion in limine to exclude evidence that it believes is irrelevant to the present case, a suit for injury allegedly caused by defendant’s Daikon Shield, an intrauterine contraceptive device (“IUD”). Defendant’s other motion asks the court

211 Kan. 26 (1973) 505 P.2d 680 L.V. THOMPSON, Appellee, v. KEITH L. MEYERS and FRED W. REUST, Appellants. No. 46,495 Supreme Court of Kansas. Opinion filed January 20, 1973. William E. Enright, of the firm of Scott, Quinlan & Hecht, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Robert D. Hecht and Jack A. Quinlan, of the same fir

369 B.R. 36 (2007) CITIFINANCIAL AUTO, Appellant, v. Lisa Lynne HERNANDEZ-SIMPSON, Appellee. Ford Motor Credit Company, Appellant, v. Brett Burgess & Janet Burgess, Appellees. Citifinancial Auto, Appellant, v. Linda Wallace, Appellee. Ford Motor Credit Company, Appellant, v. Christine Parker, Appellee. Ford Motor Credit Company, Appellant, v. Michael D. Scheerer and Guadalupe Scheerer, Appellees

MEMORANDUM ** Jane Doe appeals pro se from the district court’s judgments against her in two cases, consolidated on appeal, in which she sought damages and injunctive relief arising from her civil commitment and mental health treatment in 2000 and 2001. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we may affirm the district court’s decision on any ground supported by the record, even if it differs from

MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN M. FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge. This case was referred to me for resolution of discovery disputes. Currently pending and ready for resolution is Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant ADCO Circuits] Inc. ’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdiction

37 Cal.App.2d 16 (1940) WITT'S DAIRY (a Copartnership) et al., Petitioners, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION and FRED CORWIN, Respondents. Civ. No. 11211. California Court of Appeals. First Appellate District, Division One. January 30, 1940. Keith & Creede for Petitioners. Everett A. Corten and Eldon B. Spofford for Respondents. Goodell, J.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN M. FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge. This case was referred to me for resolution of discovery disputes. Currently pending and ready for resolution is Defendant ARINC Incorporated’s Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant WMATA [#423]. For the reasons stated herein

37 Cal.App.2d 50 (1940) LIMITED MUTUAL COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY (a Corporation), Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION and MELVIN T. VOLD, Respondents. Civ. No. 11180. California Court of Appeals. First Appellate District, Division One. January 31 1940. Keith & Creede for Petitioner. Everett A. Corten and Eldon B. Spofford for Responden

MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-08-00482-CR Kenneth INGLE, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION REGGIE B. WALTON, District Judge. This case is currently before the Court on two motions directed at ARINC, Incorporated’s (“ARINC”) cross-claim and third-party complaint. The first is the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s (“WMATA”) motion to dismiss Count I (Breach of Contract and Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) and Count III (Contractual Indemnification) of AR

754 F.Supp.2d 293 (2010) IN RE NEURONTIN MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: Harden Manufacturing Corporation; Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross/Blue of Louisiana; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 68 Welfare Fund; ASEA/AFSCME Local 52 Health Benefits Trust; Gerald Smith; and Lorraine Kopa, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Pfizer, Inc. and Warner

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* MARY BECK BRISCOE, Chief Judge. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this *690appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is, therefore, submitted

944 A.2d 1183 (2008) Susan RUNNELS, et al. v. Jonathan G. NEWELL, et al. No. 1374, Sept. Term, 2006. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. March 28, 2008. *1190 Thomas X. Glancy, Jr. (Gordon, Feinblatt, Rothman, Hoffberger & Hollander, LLC, Deborah A. Jeon on the brief), Baltimore, for Appellant. William F. Brockman, L