Cases

The opinion of the court was delivered by WECKER, J.A.D. This appeal is before us on remand from the Supreme Court. Smith v. Fireworks by Girone, Inc., 182 N.J. 138, 861 A.2d 843 (2004). It arises from interrelated disputes regarding (1) the proper source of payment for a judgment against a municipality and in favor of a child injured after a fireworks display, and (2) the viability of a pr

MEMORANDUM OPINION James C. Cacheris, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE This matter is before the Court for declaratory judgment regarding an insurer’s obligations under a “per occurrence” commercial general liability insurance policy. Plaintiffs suffered injuries in a fireworks accident and hope the insurer will satisfy the judgment they might receive in state court for those injuries. To that end, Plai

Justice LaVECCHIA, dissenting. The majority seemingly concedes that there is no “principled” way to fit the facts of this case within the requirement of N.J.SA 59:4-2 that public property be “dangerous at the time of the injury” for liability to attach. Ante at 214, 850 A.2d at 465. The public property here simply was not in a dangerous condition *218<

OPINION HILLMAN, District Judge: Currently pending before the Court is the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by Defendant Infinity Access LLC. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion shall be denied. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This matter stems from an insurance policy coverage dispute. Plaintiff Liberty International Underwriters

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN A. ROSS, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 77) and Motion for Leave to Supplement Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend Pursuant [sic] Local Rule 7-4.01.1 (Doc. No. 85). I. Background On August 20, 2012, Plaintiff Trademark M

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING OMNICARE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 59], AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ACT FAST’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 57] IRENE M. KEELEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Pending before the Court are the motions for summary judgment filed by the defendants, Omnicare, Inc., Act Fast Delivery, Inc., and Act Fast Delivery of West Virginia. For the r

800 F.2d 660 5 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1310 Spiro GIOTIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.APOLLO OF THE OZARKS, INC., Red Rocket Fireworks, acorporation, and Cyril James Warrilow, LeadUnderwriter, Defendants-Appellees,andMalcolm GILLESPIE, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant,v.CAPITOL FIREWORKS COMPANY and John Heffinger, Jr.,Third-Party Defendants. Nos. 85-1835, 85-22

DAMOORGIAN, J. Appellants, Plaintiffs below, appeal the final judgment arising out of an order granting Appellees’, Alan and Jill Miller’s (“Millers”), motion for directed verdict. Appellants argue that the trial court erred in directing a verdict against them. We disagree and affirm. This case arises out of a liquid propane gas explosion which occurred at the vacation home of the Millers. The explosion d

Belfance, Presiding Judge. {¶ 1} This matter is before this court pursuant to remand by the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Supreme Court of Ohio has reversed this court’s decision in B.J. Alan Co. v. Congress Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 9th Dist. No. 07CA0051, 2007-Ohio-7023, 2007 WL 4554187 (“B.J. Alan I ”), and has remanded the matter for consideration of whether the Congress Township zoning ordinance at issue

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-2266 ___________________________ Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Neal R. Lewis l

CUMMINGS, Chief Judge. This appeal comes to us from the district court’s grant of motions by defendants Apollo of the Ozarks, Inc. (“Apollo”) and Red Rocket Fireworks (“Red Rocket”) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. This case once again requires this Court to explore the limitations of personal jurisdiction over non-consenting, nonresident defendants that are mandated by the constitutional requirement of due proces

995 F.Supp. 1304 (1996) Lena R. GAINES-TABB, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ICI EXPLOSIVES USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; Imperial Chemical Industries, PLC, a foreign corporation; ICI Canada Inc., a foreign corporation; Doe Corporations 1 through 99; Doe Companies 1 through 99; John Does 1 through 99, and Jane Does 1 through 99, Defendants. No. CIV-95-719-R. United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma.

OPINION AND ORDER O’TOOLE, District Judge. The defendant has moved to suppress the fruits of physical and digital searches that took place between April 19, 2013 and July 26, 2013. The government opposes the motions, and the defendant has filed a reply brief. The defendant has requested an evidentiary hearing, but as set forth below, a hearing is not necessary to resolve the present motions.

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER DAVID L. BUNNING, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Doc. # 186) which addressed three pending motions in this matter: (1) Defendant’s Objections to the United States’ Preliminary Judgment of Forfeiture (Doc. # 103); (2) Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. # 119); and (3) the United Sta

OPINION AND ORDER RONNIE ABRAMS, District Judge: When an employer requires an employee to attend alcohol counseling and treatment sessions as a condition of keeping her job, must the employer compensate the employee for the time she spends in counseling and treatment? That is the central question in this lawsuit, in which Plaintiffs Gwendolyn A. Gibbs and Lanita Drew claim that the failure of their e

POSNER, Chief Judge. A fireman’s widow has sued Honeywell, the provider of an alarm system intended to *485 protect the house where her husband was killed in the line of duty. The suit, filed in an Indiana state court, charges that David John Edwards died because of Honeywell’s negligence in failing

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 15-3475 _____________ IN RE: MODAFINIL ANTITRUST LITIGATION Mylan Laboratories, Inc.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd; Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Appellants _____________ On Appeal

OPINION TERRIE LIVINGSTON, CHIEF JUSTICE This is an appeal from a final judgment granting the City of Frisco, Texas’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing with prejudice all of the claims of appellants FLCT, Ltd. and Field Street Development I, Ltd. (collectively, Owners) against the City. In four issues, Owners contend that the trial court erred by granting the plea to the jurisdiction because (1) the

455 F.Supp.2d 802 (2006) CITIZENS FOR COMMUNITY ACTION, an Illinois not for profit corporation, Wayne Strnad, and Bruce Randazzo, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, Alfred Sanchez, Catharine Mullen Hennessy, Tommy Johnson, Barry Berman and Gerald Brown, Defendants. No. 04 C 5395. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. September 13,

David J. Hale, Judge Plaintiffs Kruti Desai, Melanie Fink, Belinda Gale Parkerson, Jeremy Parkerson, Daniel Popp, and Carolyn Vincent alleged that their former employer, Charter Communications, LLC, falsely accused them of theft after their employment was terminated. (Docket No. 7) Following a weeklong trial, a jury agreed, finding Charter liable for defamation per se. (D.N. 168) Charter has moved for judgment as a matter of law or