Cases

Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 21-0769 ══════════ Angela Horton and Kevin Houser, Petitioners, v. The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Respondent ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Distri

Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 21-0769 ══════════ Angela Horton and Kevin Houser, Petitioners, v. The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Respondent ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Distri

Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 21-0769 ══════════ Angela Horton and Kevin Houser, Petitioners, v. The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Respondent ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth D

Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 21-0769 ══════════ Angela Horton and Kevin Houser, Petitioners, v. The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Respondent ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth D

Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 21-0769 ══════════ Angela Horton and Kevin Houser, Petitioners, v. The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Respondent ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Distri

Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 21-0769 ══════════ Angela Horton and Kevin Houser, Petitioners, v. The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Respondent ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Fif

176 Conn. 245 (1978) RUSSELL SCHENCK ET AL. v. THEODORE PELKEY ET AL. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued October 3, 1978. Decision released November 21, 1978. COTTER, C. J., LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and PETERS, JS. *246 Ralph P. Dupont, with whom were Kevin T. Nixon and Robert D. Tobin, for the app

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ROBERT J. SHELBY, United States District Judge This is a putative class action brought against two affiliated trucking companies by drivers once associated with those companies. Plaintiffs Charles Roberts and Kenneth McKay allege that Defendants C.R. England, Inc. and Opportunity Leasing, Inc. developed a fraudulent plan to induce thousands of people to enroll in England’s dr

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Virginia M. Kendall, District Judge Plaintiffs Thomas Costello, Megan Baase Kephart, Osama Daoud, and the class they seek to represent, worked for Defendant BeavEx, Inc., a courier company, as delivery drivers. The Plaintiffs brought the instant three-count Complaint on January 11, 2013 alleging that BeavEx unlawfully classified its delivery drivers as “independent

WALD, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I am in accord with the premises my colleagues use in deciding this case,1 but I find it impossible to apply them to the facts and come to the same conclusion. I agree that the court’s focus should be “solely on whether the FCC’s determination that there were no ‘substantial and material questions of fact’ flowed logically from the evidence in the record

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant Knight Transportation, Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.” Dkt. # 51. Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact that would preclude the

GLICKMAN, Associate Judge: This appeal is from a grant of summary judgment and an award of attorney’s fees in litigation between a housing cooperative and the personal representative of the estate of one of the cooperative’s former members. We find it necessary to remand the case for the trial court to decide whether to allow the personal representative to add a new claim in her suit against the cooperative for breach of con

Filed 9/10/25; certified for publication 9/30/25 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT CHRISTINA CASAREZ, F086901 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 19CECG03758) v. IRIGOYEN FARMS, INC. et al.,

Stephens, J. ¶1 We recently addressed the same question presented in this appeal. State v. Frawley, 140 Wn. App. 713, 167 P.3d 593 (2007). During voir dire, the trial judge here questioned selected jurors individually in the jury room, based on their responses to a questionnaire that asked about their experiences with sexual abuse. Nicholas Duckett waived his right to be present. However, the court

¶1 Sweeney, C. J. Our Supreme Court has made it clear that the trial of a criminal defendant may not be closed to the public absent a rigorous evaluation and balancing of a number of factors. State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 258-59, 906 P.2d 325 (1995). Here, the trial judge excluded the public by conducting a portion of the jury voir dire in chambers without waivers from either the defendant or anyone

707 A.2d 799 (1998) 1998 ME 52 Leo LAROCHELLE v. Robert CYR and Stephen Hodsdon. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Argued December 2, 1997. Decided March 10, 1998. *800 John S. Campbell (orally), Paulos & Campbell, P.A., Portland, for plaintiff. Theodore H. Kirchner (orally), Norman, Hanson &

KANNE, Circuit Judge. BeavEx, Inc. is a same-day delivery service that enlists 104 couriers to carry out its customers’ orders throughout the state of Illinois. By classifying its couriers as *1048 independent contractors instead of employees, BeavEx is not subject to several state and federal em

Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge BAZELON. BAZELON, Senior Circuit Judge. This case involves a decision of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reallocate radio spectrum for use in connection with a new communications common carrier service, Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS).1 DEMS is a nationwide system for the “high-speed, end-to-end, two-

MARY RUTH HAYES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent; JIMMY L. HAYES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RespondentHayes v. CommissionerDocket Nos. 26913-91, 30646-91United States Tax Court

United States Tax Court 164 T.C. No. 10 ABBVIE INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ————— Docket No. 2597-23. Filed June 17, 2025. ————— In 2014, P, a domestic public corporation, and S, a