Cases

254 S.W.3d 148 (2008) John Dean WARNER, III, Respondent, v. Sgt. James WURM, Lt. Donald Strate, Sgt. Michael Sack, Lt. Kenneth Bradshaw, Lt. James Whyte, Thomas Stoff, Leslie Bond, Sr. MD., Thomas Bozzo, and Chris Goodson, Appellants. No. ED 89878. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five. April 1, 2008. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer De

HJELM, J. [¶1] This case draws us again into the confluence of public and private property rights within the intertidal zone-this time, to address the ownership of rockweed, a species of seaweed that grows in Maine's intertidal zone and is often found on the rocky ledges that accent the State's coastline. Specifically, we are asked to determine whether rockweed is private property tha

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JOHN CASSERLY, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, Appellee. No. 4D16-1771 [September 27, 2017] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach Coun

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 19a0256p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT KENNETH BISIG, et al., ┐ Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, │ │

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. This appeal arises from several pharmaceutical antitrust actions that were consolidated and transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Defendant Warner Chilcott (“Warner”) is a brand-name drug manufacturer that owns the patent covering the oral contraceptive Loestrin 24 Fe (“Loe

COBB, Presiding Justice, for the Court. ¶ 1. This case is before the Court on an interlocutory appeal filed by Warner-Lambert Company and its unincorporated division, Parke-Davis, together with four physicians who prescribed the drug Rezulin (collectively Warner-Lambert)1, following *1093the Holmes County Circuit Court’

42 Cal.Rptr.3d 2 (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264 132 P.3d 211 Amaani LYLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WARNER BROTHERS TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. S125171. Supreme Court of California. April 20, 2006. *4 Mark Weidmann, Los Angeles, and Scott O. Cummings, Lon

MEMORANDUM NOCE, United States Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 37)1 on plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Doe. No. 31). The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Oral argument was heard on this motion on Octobe

MEMORANDUM & ORDER JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior United States District Judge: Table of Contents I.Introduction.. .398 A. Essential Issue.. .398 B. Arguments of Parties... 399 II. Factual Background and Procedural History.. .400 A. Parties.. .400 1. Plaintiff.. .400 2.

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. Drug manufacturer Warner Chilcott Limited pulled one of its products-Asacol-from the market just months before the drug's patent protection expired. Warner simultaneously introduced a similar but not exactly identical substitute drug called Delzicol, the patent protection for which ran years longer. This coordinated withdrawal and entry of the two drugs alleged

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. Robert Young appeals from the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. (Warner-Jenkinson). Young *1020 alleges that Warner-Jenkinson terminated him because of his disability in violation of the Americans wit

LOWENSTEIN, Judge. Kenneth Berg appeals from a summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-respondent, Marvin Warner. The following facts are not in dispute. Westminster Gerontology Foundation, Inc. (WGF) executed a promissory note payable to Warner with Berg acting as a limited guarantor. WGF twice defaulted on the note and after each incident, Warner and Berg entered into a Modification and Stock Pledge Agreement.

NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Even in a case as' heavily ladened with community emotion as this one, my sworn judicial duty to accord equal rights to the rich as well as the poor remains. Residing within that obligation is the commandment to be vigilant to ensure that the constitutional rights of this defendant have not wittingl

Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email corrections@akcourts.us. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA KENNETH ARNOULT, ) ) Supreme Court No

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 22a0012p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaint

MEMORANDUM TENNEY, District Judge. The plaintiffs in this as-yet-uncertified class action have moved to amend their complaint pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”). In its present posture the complaint charges numerous violations of securities and common law in behalf of a class consisting of all persons who, from January 6,1967 to January 17,1977, purchased the stock of Ge

20 Cal.3d 678 (1978) 574 P.2d 1237 143 Cal. Rptr. 885 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JOHN MERTZ WARNER, Defendant and Respondent. Docket No. Crim. 19662. Supreme Court of California. March 1, 1978. *681 COUNSEL Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Jack R. Winkler, Ch

HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge. After pleading guilty to federal felony offenses, two members of a drug conspiracy now allege various errors during their sentencing hearings before a district court. For the reasons stated below, we find no error and affirm the sentences. I. BACKGROUND A shopper at the Quad-City Meat Marke

9 Wn. App. 358 (1973) 512 P.2d 1116 NANCY KORON WARNER, Respondent, v. LLOYD T. KRESSLY et al., Appellants. No. 598-3. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three. July 20, 1973. *359 William J. Powell, for appellants. John E. Snoddy and Kenneth A. Bell, for respondent.</

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES HARVEY, District Judge. Presently before the Court is an amended petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on behalf of James Barkley which seeks to prevent the United States Marine Corps from exercising control over the petitioner and removing him from the jurisdiction of this Court to face possible disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absence in another state.