Cases

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated October 22, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion, in effect, pursuant to CELR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate an order of the same court dated June 7, 2002, granting the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter judgment on the issue of liability upon his default in appearing or answering, pursuant to CELR

Per Curiam. AFFIRMED. Winokur, Jay, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.

The petitioner Arthur Gainey’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 105 Conn. App. 902 (AC 27364), is denied.

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 5, 2008 Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 5, 2008. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D16-2499 _____________________________ MALCOLM GAINEY, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County. Wade Mercer, Judge. May 25, 2018 PER CURIAM. Malcolm Gainey was a syst

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D16-2499 _____________________________ MALCOLM GAINEY, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County. Wade Mercer, Judge. August 1, 2018 ON MOTION FOR CLARIFI

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D16-5823 _____________________________ MALCOLM GAINEY, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County. Wade Mercer, Judge. May 25, 2018 PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. WINOKUR, JAY,

944 A.2d 982 (2008) 286 Conn. 912 Arthur GAINEY v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Decided March 18, 2008. Mary H. Trainer, special public defender, in support of the petition. Melissa Patterson, special deputy assistant state's attorney, in opposition. The petitioner Arthur Gainey's petition for certification for appea

Quinlan, Regina L., J. On November 4, 2005, the plaintiffs, John Gainey, Marie Gainey, Shelby and John Camden Gainey (the “Gainey children”),3 Ashley Summers and Kirra Summers (the “Gainey stepchild”)4 filed a Complaint against the defendants, James Norton, Sean Cowing, Arbella Protection Insurance Company, Inc., Wayne Levasseur, Regan Yerhot, and Tom Quinn. On January 18, 2

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Sandra Rice brought an action against Sunrise Express, Inc. (“Sunrise Express”) for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA” or “the Act”) after Sunrise Express terminated her upon, her return from a medical leave. Sunrise Express argued that Ms. Rice would have been terminated even if she had not taken leave, and, thus, the company had not violated the Act. The jury returned a verdict for

On Petition for Rehearing En Banc On consideration of the petition for rehearing with suggestion of rehearing en banc filed by the plaintiff-appellee and the answer of defendants-appellants, all of the judges on the original panel voted to deny rehearing and a majority of the judges in active service voted to deny rehearing en banc. Judge Diane P. Wood dissented from the denial o

PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J. This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Class Certification by Plaintiffs Francis Fenwick et al. (ECF No. 138), and a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. I This is a class action matter brought by individuals who seek refund of the money paid for certain prescription pills of the drug Atorvastatin, manufactured and sold by the defendants.1

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal from a final judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sullivan, J.) granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss Taveras’s claims brought pursuant to the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., for lack of constitutional standing, denying Plaintiffs leave to further amend the Amended Complain

860 S.W.2d 168 (1993) Terry Jo TYNES, John R. Brooke, III, Caroline B. Schindler, Ronita Miller, Equitable Trust Company, Gainey & Schweers and Carl G. Jockusch, Appellants/Appellees, v. Gary MAURO, Commissioner of the General Land Office of the State of Texas, Appellee/Appellant. No. 08-91-00086-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso. July 14, 1993. Rehear

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PER CURIAM: Randy Kopp, an employee of Ideare, Inc., and a participant in the Ideare Management Plan (“the Plan”), brought this Employee Retirement Security Act (“ERISA”) action on behalf of all current and former participants in the Plan for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased o

OPINION JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge.. Plaintiffs John Dudenhoefer and Alireza Partovipanah, participants in and contributors to their employer’s retirement plan, filed suit against Fifth Third and several individual Defendants on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Secu

533 F.3d 321 (2008) NEW ORLEANS & GULF COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Angel Marinovich BARROIS; Darren J. Barrois; Becky Hingle Kaliszeski; Jason C. Kaliszeski; Brady J. Miller; Tracy Windham Miller; Betty St. Germain Nelson; Kevin A. Nelson; Jerry J. Rayborn, Sr.; Lawrence Joseph Tillotson; Patricia Lerille Tillotson; Furniture Mart—Real Estate Holdings, LLC; Carol Plaisance Gainey; Leonard Jourdan, Jr.; Bruce Kennair; Tammy

PER CURIAM: This case returns to the Court for the second time since 2013. After the September 2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (“Lehman”), Plaintiffs-Appellants (“Plaintiffs”) brought suit on behalf of a putative class, of former participants in an employee stock ownership plan (“ESOP”) invested exclusively in Lehman’s common stock. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants-Appellees (“Plan Committee Defendants”

Nurhan v Harley (2025 NY Slip Op 01939) Nurhan v Harley 2025 NY Slip Op 01939 Decided on April 2, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. <

EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge: In this stock-drop suit, the question on appeal is whether the district court erred in holding that the plaintiff stockholders’ amended complaint stated a plausible claim under the pleading standards of Fifth Third Bancorp v, Dudenhoeffer, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2459, 189 L.Ed.2d 457 (2014). Because we conclude that it did, we