Cases

637 F.3d 849 (2011) Howard Paul GARRISON, Appellant, v. Jerry BURT, Appellee. No. 10-1709. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: November 18, 2010. Filed: March 8, 2011. *851 Alfredo G. Parrish, argued, Des Moines, IA, for Appellant. Thomas William Andrews, AAG, argued, Des Moines, IA,

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 22a0170p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ MARVIN CHARLES GABRION, II, │ Petitioner-

980 F.2d 785 60 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 743,60 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,909, 299 U.S.App.D.C. 4,24 Fed.R.Serv.3d 419 Marvin K. HAMMON, et al., Appellants,v.Sharon Pratt KELLY, et al. No. 92-7067. United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit. Argued Nov. 19, 1992.Decided Dec. 15, 1992.Rehearing and Reheari

707 F.Supp.2d 945 (2010) Howard Paul GARRISON, Petitioner, v. Jerry BURT, Warden, Anamosa State Penitentiary, Respondent. No. 4:08-CV-00474-JAJ. United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Central Division. March 1, 2010. *949 Alfredo G. Parrish, Parrish Kruidenier Dunn Boles Gribble Parrish Gentry & Fisher LLP, Des Moines, IA,

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS MARVIN PLUMLEY, WARDEN, FILED Huttonsville Correctional Center, Respondent Below, Petitioner April 7, 2016 released at 3:00 p.m.

</

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-05-318-CV JUDY ALLEN, INDEPENDENT APPELLANT ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF

*1351 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ELEANOR L. ROSS, District Judge. FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS ACE WHOLESALE, INC., AND JASON FLO ARE A Plaintiffs Sprint Communications Company, L.P. and Sprint Nextel Corporation (“Plaintiffs”) brought the above-captioned lawsuit against Defendants A

JACOBS, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs-appellants appeal from so much of a judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, John M. Walker, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation, 735 F.Supp. 1196, as (a) granted summary judgment to defendant E.F. Hutton Group, Inc. (“Hutton”) on plaintiffs-appellants’ claim that they were sold unsuitable securities in violation of Section 10(b) of the

PER CURIAM: * This appeal challenges the district court’s dismissal, on forum non conveniens grounds, of a consolidated set of lawsuits arising out of an accident and explosion that took place in Mexico. We AFFIRM. I Five groups of plaintiffs (together, “Appellants”), who were Mexican and American citizens residing in both Mexico and Texas, filed five separate

PER CURIAM: Woody F. Lemons was convicted on nine counts based on the bank fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (executing a scheme to defraud a federally insured financial institution), as well as on four related counts. His appeal turns primarily on the reach of § 1344. However, he does not appeal his convictions on five counts, including the first two for bank fraud (which concern

189 F.Supp.2d 395 (2002) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Burt G. MAXWELL, Virginia Maxwell, and Beatrice W. Adcock, Defendants. In re: the Real Property and Premises Known as 6500 Carriage Drive, Alexandria Virginia. No. CIV.A. 01-1017-A, No. CR. 99-329-A. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. March 21, 2002.

286 F.Supp.2d 819 (2003) Sandra M. CLARK and Rhonda R. Knoop, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:01CV-659-H. United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, At Louisville. September 30, 2003. *820 *821 *822

976 F.Supp. 872 (1997) Joann BRANDON, Personal Representative of the Estate of Teena Brandon, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. John LOTTER, Marvin Nissen, and Charles B. Laux, Richardson County Sheriff, Defendants. No. 4:CV94-3423. United States District Court, D. Nebraska. September 2, 1997. *873 James Kelley, Michael J. Hansen, Berry, K

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF CHARLES R. RICHEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE CHARLES R. RICHEY, District Judge. On September 1, 1998, the Defendants in the above-captioned case filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s August 20, 1993 Order. In an effort to address this motion, the Court held a hearing on September 23, 1993. At that time, the parties were in agreement that the matter should be referr

OPINION CHARLES R. RICHEY, District Judge. On August 12, 1993, counsel representing the Byrne Plaintiffs in the above-captioned consolidated action filed a Motion to Enforce the Settlement Decree. The Byrne Plaintiffs seek to prevent the District of Columbia from demoting approximately 133 sergeants, lieutenants, and captains of the District of Columbia Fire Department (“Department”). The demotions are alleg

*2TABLE OF CONTENTS I. The Court reaffirms its determination as to the distribution of the $100,000 Special Litigation Fund because the Special Master’s finding that all class members have borne an identifiable burden by virtue of delay is amply supported by the record and because the decision to distribute the money on a pro rata basis is not inconsistent with the Settlement Agreeme

MEMORANDUM OPINION CHARLES R. RICHEY, District Judge. After years of litigation relating to this case, the Court finally finds itself in a position to rule on the last few issues raised in connection with the efforts of the parties and the Special Master to implement the terms and conditions of the 1990 Settlement Agreement and. Consent Decree. By the following Opinion and Order, the Court thus sets forth its determi

PER CURIAM. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. (Larkin) was retained to represent Maid-Rite Corporation (Maid-Rite), Bradley L. Burt, and Tania Burt in this franchise dispute. Larkin moved to withdraw as counsel after the franchisor failed to pay for its legal fees and to provide important information related to its defense. The district court denied

¶ 69. Because the plaintiffs' causes of action are based in the common law, they are not preempted by state statutes, i.e. Miss. Code Ann.§§ 83-1-1 et seq. (1999). The majority now seeks to not only invoke the filed rate doctrine in this case, but is attempting to expand it to include questions "which are subject to oversight by the Department of Insurance." (emphasis added). No authority is cited for this aggrandizement of the filed