Cases

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER COGAN, District Judge. The Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a)(2) (“FCRA”), prohibits a consumer reporting agency from reporting information concerning “[c]ivil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that, from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the l

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by published opinion. Judge KING wrote the opinion, in which Judge MOTZ and Judge THACKER joined. KING, Circuit Judge: In early 2010, plaintiff Shawn Massey was released from a North Carolina prison after a state court in Mecklenburg County struck five verdicts that had been ren

256 Kan. 90 (1994) DANIEL SMITH, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. MASSEY-FERGUSON, INC., a Maryland Corporation; MASSEY-FERGUSON LTD., a Canadian Corporation; VARITY CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DEAN STROBERG, Defendants, and DAVID STROBERG, Appellant/Cross-Appellee. No. 69,826 Supreme Court of Kansas. Opinion filed October 28, 1994. Norman R. Kelly,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER IRENE C. BERGER, District Judge. Lead Plaintiff, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Trust (“Massachusetts PRIT”) and Plaintiff David Wagner, on behalf of the putative class, allege that the price of Massey Energy Company (“Massey”) stock was artificially inflated, between February 1, 2008, and July 27, 2010, because Massey and several of its senior executi

400 F.Supp.2d 66 (2005) Warner MASSEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 05-2033 (RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. November 3, 2005. *67 Joseph B. Tulman, University of DC David A. Clarke School of Law, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Mohr Partners, Inc. v. Elior, Inc., 2025 NCBC 24. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION MECKLENBURG COUNTY 23 CVS 2657 MOHR PARTNERS, INC., a Texas corporation, Plaintiff, ORDER AND OPINION ON CROSS- v. MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY

Vitaform, Inc. v. Aeroflow, Inc., 2022 NCBC 65. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION BUNCOMBE COUNTY 19 CVS 3707 VITAFORM, INC. d/b/a BODY AFTER BABY, Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND OPINION ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AEROFLOW, INC. an

15 Wn. App. 782 (1976) 551 P.2d 1387 JOHN MASSEY, Respondent, THOMAS JAMES DOWNEY, ET AL, Plaintiffs, v. TUBE ART DISPLAY, INC., Appellant. No. 2579-1. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One. July 12, 1976. *783 Karr, Tuttle, Koch, Campbell, Mawer & Morrow, Robert P. Piper, and Neil

USCA11 Case: 24-10913 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 05/26/2026 Page: 1 of 43 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-10913 ____________________ DECLAN FLIGHT, INC., RIGHT RUDDER AVIATION, LLC,

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D2020-3741 _____________________________ GULF MANAGEMENT, INC., and GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., Appellants, v. TALMADGE WALL, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims. Mark A. Massey, Judge. Date of Accident: March 18, 200

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA META PLATFORMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 23-3562 (RDM) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case has its origins in a 2011 agreement between Defendant Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or the “Co

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA META PLATFORMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 23-3562 (RDM) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case has its origins in a 2011 agreement between Defendant Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or the “Co

MEMORANDUM OPINION GEX, District Judge. Plaintiff, Huffco Petroleum Corporation (“Huffco”), brought this action against Defendant, David H. Massey, for the recovery of $241,588.85 in well costs which Huffco alleges Massey is personally liable for on the basis of (1) their “agreement whereby Defendant, along with others, agreed to participate to the extent of their proportionate ownership interest in the e

552 So.2d 565 (1989) Ricky Wayne MASSEY, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CENTURY READY MIX CORPORATION, et al, Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 20879-CA, 21248-CA. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit. November 1, 1989. Writ Denied January 5, 1990. *566 Leger & Mestayer by Franklin G. Shaw, Walter J. Leger

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHARLES DANIEL SMITH, No. 21-35149 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 1:18-cv-00069-SPW-TJC CHARTER ORDER CERTIFYING COMMUNICATIONS, INC., QUESTION TO THE Defendant-Appellee. SUPREME COURT OF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 49373 EAGLE ROCK TIMBER, INC., an Idaho ) corporation, ) ) Boise, February 2023 Term Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) Opinion filed: June 13, 2023 v. ) )

Humes, P.J. *775Plaintiff Norma Serrano brought this lawsuit against her former employer, Aerotek, Inc., which placed her as a temporary employee *776with its client, Bay Bread, LLC. She raised four causes of action against Aerotek and Bay Bread based on t

Filed 3/9/18; pub. order 3/21/18 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE NORMA SERRANO, Plaintiff and Appellant, A149187 v. AEROTEK, INC., (San Mateo County Super

BARNES, Presiding Judge. These companion appeals from a jury verdict arise out of a dispute between a franchisor of daycare businesses and its franchisee. The franchisor was Legacy Academy, Inc., (“Legacy”) owned by Melissa and Franklin Turner (collectively, the “Legacy Parties”). The franchisee was originally GMI Smith, LLC, and later Doles-Smith Enterprises, Inc., both of whic

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr