Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Kevin J. Donegan”
LOKEN, Circuit Judge. John Timothy Donegan, a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (“CRNA”), commenced this qui tam action under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729-33. 1 The FCA’s qui tam provisions authorize relators — private citizens acting as whistleblowers — to
Battaglia v. Doneganpublic domain
[Cite as Battaglia v. Donegan, 2024-Ohio-6022.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA CARMEN BATTAGLIA, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 113743 v. : ANN MARIE DONEGAN, ET AL., :
Great American Insurance v. Lindermanpublic domain
OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge. Plaintiff Great American Insurance Co. (“Great American”) brought this action against Defendants Matthew Linderman and Racquel Linderman, husband and wife (collectively, “the Lindermans”); and Jeff Waldien, along with two companies listing Mr. Waldien as registered agent, Precision Mobile Integration, LLC (“PMI”) and J. Waldien Designs (“JWD”) (colle
Cribbin v. New York State Unified Court Systempublic domain
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts of the State of New York to reclassify the petitioners Kevin Anderson, Martin D’Amico, Joseph Cecora, and Kenneth M. Little from the title of New York State Court Officer-Major I (Judicial Grade-26) to the title of New York State Court Officer-Major II (Judicial Grade-28), the appeal, by permission, is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau
Cribbin v. New York State Unified Court Systempublic domain
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts of the State of New York to reclassify the petitioners Kevin Anderson, Martin D’Amico, Joseph Cecora, and Kenneth M. Little from the title of New York State Court Officer-Major I (Judicial Grade-26) to the title of New York State Court Officer-Major II (Judicial Grade-28), the appeal, by permission, is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau
Self-Insurance Institute of America, Inc. v. Snyderpublic domain
*553 OPINION KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. This case requires us, once again, to navigate the quagmire that is preemption. Plaintiff-Appellant, which represents various sponsors and administrators of self-funded ERISA benefit plans, argues that federal law — the Supremacy Clau
Roberts v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc.public domain
*415 KISTLER, J. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc., and its directors (collectively TriQuint) are defendants in two consolidated shareholder derivative suits filed in Multnomah County. 1 TriQuint moved to dismiss those suits on the ground that its cor
Allied Construction Industries v. City of Cincinnatipublic domain
ORDER Michael R. Barrett, Judge This matter is before the Court on: 1) Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 52); and 2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) (Doc. 53); 3) Intervenor Local 265’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Local 265”) (Doc. 55), 4) Local 265’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 65); 5) Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 74), and the responsive memora
Self-Insurance Institute of America, Inc. v. Snyderpublic domain
OPINION KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. This case requires us, once again, to navigate the quagmire that is preemption. Plaintiff-Appellant, Self-Insurance Institute of America, Inc. (“SIIA”), represents various sponsors and administrators of self-funded ERISA benefit plans, which it claims are affected by Michigan’s Health Insurance Claims Assessment Ac
Christine Savage v. Township of Neptunepublic domain
SYLLABUS This syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Court and may not summarize all portions of the opinion. Christine Savage v. Township of Neptune (A-2-23) (087229) Argued January 17, 2024 -- Decided May 7, 2024 RABNER, C.J., writing for a unanimous Court. In
Crimson Trace Corp. v. Davis Wright Tremaine LLPpublic domain
LANDAU, J. In this original proceeding in mandamus, relator Davis Wright Tremaine LLP (“DWT”) challenges a trial court order compelling production of certain materials that, in DWT’s view, are protected under the attorney-client privilege codified at OEC 503. The trial court issued the order in the context of a legal malpractice action against DWT by a former client. The materials that are the subject of the order are communic
Glenn v. White Oak Automotive, L.L.C.public domain
[Cite as Glenn v. White Oak Automotive, L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-572.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Asia Glenn, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 25AP-473 v. : (M.C. No. 2024 CVI 042394) White Oak Automotive, LLC
State v. Eisonpublic domain
KESSLER, J. ¶ 1. Winston B. Eison appeals from a judgment of conviction and an order denying his motion for a new trial based on Eison's claim that "other acts" evidence was erroneously admitted concerning his arrest and his conduct related thereto, and that testimony by his former wife was admitted in violation of the marital privilege codified in Wis. Stat. § 905.05 (2009-10).1 We agree with Eison,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER . DONOVAN W. FRANK, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION Relators Ricia Johnson and Health Dimensions Rehabilitation, Inc. (“HDR”) (together, “Relators”) initiated this qui tam action, on behalf of the United States of America (the “Government”), against Defendants Golden Gate National Senior Care, L.L.C.; GGNSC Holdings, L.L.C; and GGNSC Wayzata
Roberts v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc.public domain
No. 54 December 10, 2015 413 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON Donald L. ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Adverse Party, v. TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; Ralph G. Quinsey; Steven J. Sharp; Charles Scott Gibson; David Ho; Nicolas Kauser; Roderick Nelson;
Coughlin v. T.M.H. International Attractions, Inc.public domain
895 F.Supp. 159 (1995) Margaret L. COUGHLIN and John H. Coughlin, individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of William J. Coughlin, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. T.M.H. INTERNATIONAL ATTRACTIONS, INC., a Kentucky corporation, Gordon Hall, and David Hardin, Defendants. No. C-94-0029-BG(H). United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division. August 16, 1995.
Carlson Ex Rel. Stuczynski v. Bremen High Schoolpublic domain
423 F.Supp.2d 823 (2006) Lauren CARLSON, a Minor, by her Mother, Jean STUCZYNSKI, and Natalie Halloran, Plaintiffs, v. BREMEN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 228; Superintendent Rich Mitchell, in his Individual Capacity; Dean Lillie Holman, in Her Individual Capacity; Teacher Paige Shemoski, in Her Individual Capacity, Defendants. No. 05 C 6194. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.</
172 S.W.3d 786 (2005) COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, TRANSPORTATION CABINET, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Appellant, v. Robin L. BABBITT, Special Administrator of the Estate of Michael Roy Bender; Larry Logsdon; Jane Foley Nash, Special Administrator of the Estate of Cecilia Ann Bender; and Kentucky Board of Claims, Appellees, and Brandon Taylor, Personal Representative of the Estate of Sherry Taylor, Appellant, v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Dep
State of Tennessee v. Reba Nell Woodspublic domain
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 18, 2013 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. REBA NELL WOODS Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2010-B-1000 Mark J. Fishburn, Judge No. M2012-01922-CCA-R3-CD - Filed December 9, 2013 A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Reba Nell Woods, of three co
People v. Spearspublic domain
2024 IL App (1st) 181491 Nos. 1-18-1491, 1-18-1818, 1-18-1819, and 1-18-1820 (consolidated) Second Division May 14, 2024 ____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE C