Cases

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______ No. 21-2603 ______ FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH, INC.; ENGLEWOOD HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, Appellants ______ On Appeal from the United States District Court

ACCEPTED 07-15-00306-CV SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS AMARILLO, TEXAS 11/16/2015 8:27:18 PM

MATHIAS, Judge. Norma Jackson (“Jackson”) appeals a protective services order issued by the Delaware Circuit Court requiring her to receive twenty-four-hour care and supervision at a nursing facility. Jackson argues that Adult Protective Services (“APS”) failed to present sufficient evidence that she was an “endangered adult” and that a life threatening emergency existed under Ind

Sam A. Lindsay, United States District Judge Before the court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 72), filed November 18, 2016. After careful consideration of the motion, response, reply, appendixes, record, and applicable law, the court grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 72). I. Factual and Procedural Background This case arises out o

Judge CUFF (temporarily assigned) delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a premises liability case. Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet spot on a floor in an outpatient health care facility owned and operated by a nonprofit hospital. The issue before this Court is whether the health care facility is entitled to charitable

BEVAN, Justice John Doe (2017-27) ("the father") and Jane Doe (2017-27) ("the mother") appeal judgments from the magistrate court terminating their parental rights to their daughters ("Z.W." and "N.W."). The magistrate court terminated the mother and father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect, abuse, inability to discharge parental responsibilities, and chronic abuse and/or neglect, and also found termination was in the

149 F.Supp.2d 1115 (2000) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, Shawn Hogya, James Francis, James Aikens and Chris Wilson, Intervenors, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICES, INC., Defendant. No. C 97-00961 WHA. United States District Court, N.D. California. December 12, 2000. *1116 *1117

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT KAISER’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(b)(6), DENYING DEFENDANT KAISER’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE (12)(b)(7), AND ORDER RE RULE 19 JOINDER ALAN C. KAY, Senior District Judge. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case arises from a dispute over a health maintenance organization’s ability to take discounts on service

796 F.Supp.2d 568 (2011) Gail A. CONNOR, Plaintiff, v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 09-cv-1140 (NLH). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. June 24, 2011. *570 Stephen R. Bosin, River Edge, NJ, for Plaintiff Gail A. Connor. Ivan R. Novich, Edwards, Angell, Palmer &a;

OPINION MATHIAS, Judge. Karma W. (“Mother”) and Brandon J. (“Father”) appeal the involuntary termination of their parental rights to their respective children in Marion Superior Court. We affirm. Issues Mother and Father raise several issues on appeal, which we consolidate and restate as: I. Whether the Marion County Department of Child Servic

162 F.Supp.2d 718 (2001) Roy MINNIS, Plaintiff, v. McDONNELL DOUGLAS TECHNICAL SERVICES CO., Defendant, and Roy Minnis, Plaintiff, v. Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant. Nos. 99-CV-70252-DT, 00-CV-73336-DT. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. September 27, 2001. *719

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CARLTON W. REEVES, District Judge. From August 13 through 16, 2012, this Court held a bench trial on Plaintiff Wendy Chickaway’s claims of medical negligence and wrongful death against the United States of America arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). Plaintiff has brought this suit as the personal representative of her son, Brandon Phillips, and on be

565 S.E.2d 254 (2002) The ESTATE OF Doris B. HENDRICKSON by Larry W. HENDRICKSON, Administrator, Larry W. Hendrickson, Loretta T. Miller and Angela T. Miller Plaintiffs, v. GENESIS HEALTH VENTURE, INC., Meridian Health, Inc., Genesis Elder Care Network Services Inc., and Genesis ElderCare Rehabilitation Services, Inc. Defendants. No. COA01-604. Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

62 F.Supp.2d 236 (1999) MASSACHUSETTS LABORERS' HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, By and Through its Trustees, on Behalf of Itself and on Behalf of all Other Similarly Situated Health and Welfare Funds in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Plaintiff, v. PHILIP MORRIS, INC.; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation; B.A.T. Industries P.L.C.; Lorillard Tobacco Company; Liggett Group, Inc.; The Council for Tobacco Research

SILAK, Justice. NATURE OF THE CASE This is an appeal to determine whether respondent Department of Health and Welfare (the Department) was required to follow the procedures which govern contested cases as established in the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act (IDAPA) when the Department denied the application of appellant Judy Maresh to participate in a day trea

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2023-CA-01267-COA JESSICA LAMBERT MOORE, APPELLANT/ ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CROSS-APPELLEE JASMINE LYNETTE MOORE, DECEASED v. STA-HOME HEALTH AGENCY OF APPELLEES/ CARTHAGE, INC., STA-HOME HEALTH AND CROSS-APPELLANTS HOSPICE, INC., CANDACE HOFFER, R.N., KATRINA TROSPER, R.N., KASONYA BOYD, R.N., ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL

778 F.Supp. 1029 (1991) Milo E. GLASS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. IDS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; IDS Life Insurance Company; and IDS Financial Corporation, Defendants. Donald STEPHENS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. IDS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; IDS Life Insurance Company; and IDS Financial Corporation, Defendants. Civ. Nos. 4-89-76, 4-89-115. United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Fourth Division.

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 04 2020, 8:51 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 16 2019, 8:41 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Nov 20 2020, 8:49 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Cou