Cases

OPINION THOMAS, Chief Circuit Judge: In these petitions for review, we consider whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) arbitrarily and capriciously determined that various energy companies committed tariff violations in Cali-fornia during the summer of '2000. We conclude that it did not, and we deny the petitions for

455 F.Supp.2d 608 (2006) KOTHMANN ENTERPRISES, INC., successor by merger to Kothmann and Kothmann, Inc., Plaintiff, v. TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. No. Civ.A. II-01-2668. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. January 13, 2006. *609 *610

394 F.Supp.2d 923 (2005) KOTHMANN ENTERPRISES, INC., successor by merger to Kothmann and Kothmann, Inc. Plaintiff, v. TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. No. Civ.A. H-01-2668. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. September 30, 2005. *924 *925

COWEN, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Jeffrey Bonkowski appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granting the summary judgment motion filed by Defendant Oberg Industries, Inc. (“Oberg”) with respect to his claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). In this appeal, the Court must interpret a Department of Labor (“DOL”) regulation — which states in relevant part t

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 13-1777 Filed February 11, 2015 SENECA WASTE SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. D & K MANAGING CONSULTANTS, LLC d/b/a MOTOR CITY PLANT SERVICES, KEITH KOSKELA, and MPS GROUP, INC., Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Douglas F. Staskal, Judge.

287 F.Supp.2d 673 (2003) KOTHMANN & KOTHMANN, INC., Plaintiff, v. TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC. Defendant. No. CIV.A.H-01-2668. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. September 3, 2003. *674 *675 Max Lalon Tribble, Jr., Susman Godfrey, Charles J. Rogers, Winstead, Sechrest

287 F.Supp.2d 699 (2002) KOTHMANN & KOTHMANN, INC., Plaintiff, v. TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC. Defendant. No. CIV.A.H-01-2668. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. September 20, 2002. *700 *701 Max Lalon Tribble, Jr, Susman Godfrey, Charles J Rogers, Winstead Sechrest &a;

CORRECTED In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 24-1832C (Filed: April 3, 2025) ) SHIMON MAIMON, ET AL., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. )

140 F.Supp.2d 595 (2001) JIM MYERS & SON, INC., Plaintiff, v. MOTION INDUSTRIES, INC., Rockwell International Corporation, and Reliance Electrical Industrial Co., Defendants, v. J.F. Cavanaugh Co. Inc., and McNamee, Porter & Seeley, Inc. a/k/a Tetra Tech MPS, Third Party Defendants. No. Civ. 3:00CV462-H. United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division.

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 24-1832C (Filed: April 3, 2025) ) SHIMON MAIMON, ET AL., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES,

OPINION FIRESTONE, Judge. The plaintiffs in this class action1 are landowners who claim to own the fee interest in land underlying a previously-operating railroad line of the Norfolk and Western Rail *711Company (“N & W”)2 between milepost I-75.5, near Peru, Indiana and milepost 1-95.6,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) V. ) Criminal No. 21-0598 (PLF) ) TERENCE SUTTON ) and ) ANDREW ZABAVSKY, ) ) Defendants. ) ) OPINION Pending before the Court are four pretrial Daubert motions seeking the exclusion of proposed expert testimony at trial. The government has proffered four expert witnesses and defendants have proffered five. Defendant Terence Sutton challenges three of the four government experts — Robert Drago, Carol

*674OPINION FIRESTONE, Judge. This post-award bid protest comes before the court on the parties’ cross-motions for judgment upon the Administrative Record pursuant to Rule 52.1 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). At issue are the actions of the United States Air Force Material Command (“Air Force”) in connection with th

63 B.R. 361 (1986) In re COASTAL INDUSTRIES, INC. and Coastal Tank Lines, Inc. Debtors and Debtors In Possession. COASTAL INDUSTRIES, INC. and Coastal Tank Lines, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, et al, Defendants. Bankruptcy Nos. 586-765, 586-766, Adv. No. 586-0186. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio. July 17, 1986.

434 B.R. 660 (2010) In re MAXXIM MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al., Debtors. Maxxim Medical, Inc., Medline Industries, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Professional Hospital Supply, Inc. and Karen McCauley, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 03-10438 (PJW). Adversary No. 8-03-mp-00026-MGW. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. March 31, 2010.

PUBLIC COPY – SEALED INFORMATION DELETED United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 20, 2023 Decided December 8, 2023 No. 23-3190 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE v. DONALD J. TRUMP, APPELLANT Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columb

In the United States Court of Federal Claims FRAWNER CORPORATION, No. 22-cv-0078 Plaintiff, Filed Under Seal: July 29, 2022 v. Publication: August 8, 20221 THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. Edward T. DeLisle, Offit Kurman, Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania

537 So.2d 780 (1989) William LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 20213-CA. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit. January 18, 1989. Writ Denied March 27, 1989. *781 Culpepper, Teat, Caldwell & Avery by Jimmy C. Teat, Jonesboro, for plaintiff-appellant.

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 20, 2023 Decided December 8, 2023 Reissued December 20, 2023 No. 23-3190 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE v. DONALD J. TRUMP, APPELLANT Appeal from the United States District Court for the D

LINN, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The so-called “petition support requirement” of the Byrd Amendment requires that a company publicly express “support of the petition” resulting in an antidump-ing duty order in order to be eligible to receive any funds collected as a result of the order. 19 U.S.C. § 1675c(b)(l)(A) (2000) (repealed 2006). Put simply, under the petition support requirement, if a domestic compan