Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge. This is a shareholder derivative action brought by Charlotte Kococinski on behalf of nominal party Medtronic, Inc. (“Medtronic”) against many of Medtronic’s current and former directors and officers, alleging that defendants breached fiduciary duties and violated securities laws by failing to prevent and m

235 S.W.3d 210 (2007) In re Michelle MOORE. No. 06-0544. Supreme Court of Texas. August 31, 2007. Rehearing Denied November 2, 2007. *211 Joseph Bonner Dorsey, Attorney At Law, Gregory T. Perkes, The Perkes Law Firm, P.C., and Melody H. Cooper, Corpus Christi, TX, for Relator. Juan Perales, and Marisa Perales, Law

Opinion WERDEGAR, J. The common law theory of continuous accrual posits that a cause of action challenging a recurring wrong may accrue not once but each time a new wrong is committed. We consider whether the theory can apply to actions under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.; hereafter UCL) and, if so, whether it applies he

KANNE, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Ronald Love of one count of distributing crack cocaine and one *836 count of conspiring to distribute crack cocaine. He appealed, challenging his conviction and sentence on various grounds. For the reasons that follow, we affirm his conviction, vacate his sente

This list is being published pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 1(15). The following persons have applied to take the February 2017 Ohio Bar Examination. Allen Taylor Gene Vance Lima Ashland Sarah Kathleen Lewis Austinburg Belmont Carson Lee Schambach St. Clairsville Butler Eric ScottBeutel Liberty Township Marc Edward Bras

539 F.3d 661 (2008) Jerilyn A. LUCAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PYRAMAX BANK, FSB, Defendant-Appellee. No. 07-2021. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued February 12, 2008. Decided August 22, 2008. *663 Martin K. Lapointe (argued), Burke, Warren, Mackay & Serritella, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 24]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion. II. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs William A. Houston (“Houston”) and Marilyn Clark (“Clark”) [collect

673 S.E.2d 531 (2009) CORNETTE v. The STATE. Webb v. The State. Nos. A08A1769, A08A1770. Court of Appeals of Georgia. February 10, 2009. *533 Thomas N. Brunt, Brunt, Hood & Lamb, for Appellant. T. Joseph Campbell, Dist. Atty., Mickey R. Thacker, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Appellee. MIKELL, Judge.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION KRAVITZ, District Judge. Plaintiffs Connecticut Department of Labor and its Commissioner Shaun B. Cashman (collectively, the “State Plaintiffs”), Plaintiffs City of Hartford and its Mayor Eddie A. Perez (collectively, the “City Plaintiffs”), and Plaintiff Delia A. Lee bring this action against Dolce International/Hartford, Inc. (“Dolce”) and OLY/Hfd Hotel, LP (“OLY”). The

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3134 ___________________________ Craig Lyons, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated; Justin Anderson, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated; Tommy Applegate, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated; Brandon Etzkorn, I

NUMBER 13-23-00491-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG NORMAN ROSS BECKEN, ET AL., Appellants, v. 1893 OIL & GAS, LTD. AND ELP2 MINERALS, LLC, Appellees.

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-757 L Filed: February 11, 2025 ________________________________________ ) 4023 SAWYER ROAD I, LLC, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, )

Filed 7/27/23 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATON CENTER, INC., D080122 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2019- 00054459-CU-BC-NC) UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defenda

320 F.Supp.2d 352 (2004) In re: ALGER, COLUMBIA, JANUS, MFS, ONE GROUP, AND PUTNAM MUTUAL FUND LITIGATION No. 04-MD-15863. United States District Court, D. Maryland. June 2, 2004. Christopher S. Hinton, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP, Alice McInerney, Ira Michael Press, Jeffrey Harold Squire, Kirby McInerney and Squire, Chet Barry Waldman, Wolf Popper LLP, Chri

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS SCHELL, Chief Judge. This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.1 Upon consideration of Defendants’ motions, the memorandum in support of such motions, responses from Plaintiffs’ counsel,2 and the applicable law, the court is of th

21-2019 Bartlett v. Baasiri In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term, 2022 No. 21-2019 ROBERT BARTLETT, TERREL CHARLES BARTLETT, LINDA JONES, SHAWN BARTLETT, MAXINE E. CROCKETT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF RICKY LEON CROCKETT, MARVISE L. CROCKETT, TRACIE ARSIAGA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT R. ARSIAG

NEUMANN, Justice. [¶ 1] Champion Healthcare Corporation, Paracelsus Healthcare Corporation (collectively “Champion Healthcare”), and Dakota Medical Foundation (“Dakota Medical”) appeal from the district court’s order granting class certification under Rule 23, N.D.R.Civ.P. We remand with instructions. I [¶ 2] On November 1, 1996, Sister Colette Werlinger, and others similarly situated

NOTICE: The attorneys on the attached list have the opportunity to comply with outstanding requirements prior to the effective date of the Supreme Court Order and not be administratively suspended. The current license status of a Pennsylvania attorney can be found on the Disciplinary Board’s website. https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-the- public/find-attorney Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Attorneys Certified for Administrative Suspensi

OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT W. SWEET, U.S.D.J. Petitioner David Bryant (“Bryant” or the “Petitioner”) has petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to vacate his October 25, 1976, criminal conviction (the “Petition,” Dkt. 1). The Petition raises issues concerning the statute of limitation bars, set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (“AEDPA”), the requir

384 F.Supp.2d 845 (2005) In re MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT LITIGATION. (In re Janus SUBTRACK). No. MDL-1586. Civ. No. 04-MD-15863. United States District Court, D. Maryland. August 25, 2005. *846 *847 *848 *849 Christopher S. Hi