Cases

Melvin Mayfield, Judge. This is an appeal by Centennial Valley Ranch Management, Inc., (CVR) from an order granting the motion to dismiss filed by the appellees Agri-Tech Limited Partnership and Agri-Tech Ltd. The appellant is an Ohio corporation. The partnership appellee was organized under the laws of Arizona; the other appellee is an Arizona corporation. The i

MAYFIELD, J. — Appellant sued appellee on two promissory notes, which, with interest, aggregated $1,-637, as to which there was no dispute or contest. Appellee interposéd two special pleas of set-off, claiming damages to his growing crops, fruit trees, etc., on account of sulphurous fumes escaping from plaintiff’s fertilizer factory, which was operated near defendant’s farm. The damages thus claimed were unliquidated, but no ques

98 S.W.3d 832 (2003) Herb ADAMS and Agri Air Services, LLC, v. WACASTER OIL COMPANY, INC. No. CA 02-199. Court of Appeals of Arkansas. Substituted Opinion[1] upon Grant of Petition for Rehearing delivered March 5, 2003. *833 Ogles Law Firm, by Johnson D. Ogles, for appellants. Mark Alan Mayfield, for appellee.</

AGEE, Circuit Judge: A group of individuals and corporations sued Ford Motor Company for an alleged defect in their purchased or leased Ford vehicles manufactured between 2002 and 2010. The district court dismissed various claims of certain Plaintiffs, excluded the opinions of the Plaintiffs' three experts, and granted summary judgment to Ford on all claims. Twenty-seven individual and

Melvin Mayfield, Judge, dissenting. I cannot agree with the majority opinion in this case. With all due respect, I think the majority has failed to apply the statutory law to the undisputed evidence. The appellant was injured while flying an airplane which was spraying chemicals on a field owned by one of the appellee’s customers. The threshold question is whether the a

686 S.W.2d 356 (1985) Charles BEECHEM, Appellant, v. C.M. PIPPIN, Individually and Sani-Agri, Inc., Appellees. No. 14248. Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin. February 20, 1985. *358 Randall C. Simmon, Cuba, Simmon & Mayfield, Temple, for appellant. Wesley N. Harris, Kelly, Appleman, Hart & Hallman, Fort Worth, for a

Filed 9/26/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ADVOCATES, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, A163346 v. (Alameda County SREAM, INC., Super. Ct. No. HG20079925) Defendant and Respo

MORITZ, Circuit Judge. ACE Fire Underwriters Insurance Company appeals the district court’s declaration that a policy ACE issued offers total coverage up to $2 million for an accident involving two insured vehicles: a tractor and trailer. Because we agree with ACE that the policy instead limits its liability to only $1 million, we reverse. Background </

JUSTICE CARTER, concurring in part and dissenting in part: Because I agree with the majority’s affirmation as to finding defendant breached the contract, I partially concur with the majority opinion. However, because I disagree with the majority’s decision not to remand the cause for further proceedings at the trial court level with regard to

*76OPINION BILL VANCE, Justice. This is a retaliatory-discharge case involving a nursing home employee, Cathy Winters, who alleged she was fired for reporting to her supervisor the possible sexual abuse of a nursing home resident by another employee. Cathy sued and prevailed, and the defendants appeal. We will modify the judgment in part and affirm it as

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT C. CHAMBERS, Chief Judge. On March 31, 2014, this Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting, in part, and denying, in part, Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Motions to Dismiss. Belville v. Ford Motor Co.', 13 F.Supp.3d 528 (S.D.W.Va.2014); Smith v. Ford Motor Co., Civ. Act. No. 3:13-14207, ECF No. 65; Brandon v. Ford Motor Co., Civ. Act

No. 3--06–0092 ______________________________________________________________________________ Filed June 14, 2007. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2007 HELEN E. MEYERS, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) for the 14th Judicial Circuit,

173 F.3d 995 1999-1 Trade Cases P 72,488 RE/MAX INTERNATIONAL, INC.; A.E.B.T.S., Inc., d/b/a Re/MaxCrossroads Properties; T.M.A.T.N.B., Inc., d/b/a Re/MaxAffinity, Inc.; D.F.I., Inc., d/b/a Re/Max Results; JosephP. Grady, Inc., d/b/a Re/Max Xpress; McGrew Realty, Inc.,d/b/a Re/Max Key Realty; Property Professionals, Inc.,d/b/a Re/Max Property Professionals,Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appel

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILLIAMS. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge: Over the 1990s, and even farther back, vitamin manufacturers allegedly fixed prices on bulk vitamin sales in violation of the antitrust laws. By September 1999 a Department of Justice investigation had secured guilty pleas from several major suppliers. Dozens of private antitrus

SWYGERT, Circuit Judge. These three consolidated matters arise from an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission granting an application for additional motor common carrier operating authority, and a district court order dismissing an action challenging the jurisdiction of the Commission to issue that and other orders. The issues presented are: 1) Did the district court properly conclude that it l

ACCEPTED 03-14-00510-CV 3762693 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/14/201

ACCEPTED 03-14-00510-CV 4519217 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/16/20

ACCEPTED 03-14-00510-CV 4243321 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

SAMEORD, J. Charge A refused to the defendant is invasive of the province of the jury, the weight, sufficiency of evidence, and conclusions, of fact are for the jury, and charges such as charge A are covered by *333charges that instruct the jury that, in order to support a verdict of guilt, the jury must so find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Such' charge w

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 206 The suit is on common counts against defendants as parties doing business under a firm name and style. Defendants pleaded the general issue and that denying the partnership existence. The liability of partners for the contracts of the partnership and that imposed on one held out as a partner was the subject