Cases

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 26a0120p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ ALEXANDER ROSS, │ Plaintiff-Appella

Justice HECHT, joined by Justice BRISTER, Justice MEDINA, and Justice WILLETT, concurring. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has certified to us1 this question: “Does Texas public policy pro*671hibit a liability insurance provider from indemnifying an award for punitive damages imposed on its insu

KEITH, Circuit Judge. In this sex discrimination action David Rasimas alleged that the Michigan Department of Mental Health terminated him from his supervisory position because of his sex. The district court agreed, but found that he had not timely filed this action with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The court also determined that his refusal to interview for a non-supervisory position with the Michigan

714 F.2d 614 32 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 688,32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,758David L. RASIMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,v.MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Defendant-Appellee,Cross-Appellant. Nos. 80-1735, 80-1736. United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit. Argued Aug. 5, 1982.Decided July 28, 1983.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ════════════ No. 04-0728 ════════════ Fairfie

539 F.3d 751 (2008) WISCONSIN CENTRAL, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Catherine SHANNON and Nancy McDonald, Defendants-Appellants. No. 07-3554. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued May 14, 2008. Decided August 26, 2008. *754 James S. Whitehead (argued), Sidley Austin, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-A

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS: FRED ZUCKERMAN, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 89 AND WILLIAM LONDRIGAN, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE KENTUCKY STATE AFL-CIO, ITS AFFILIATED UNIONS AND MEMBERS, William E. Johnson, Johnson Bearse, LLP, Irwin H. Cutler, Jr., Benjamin S. Basil, Matthew P. Lynch, Priddy Cutler Naake & Meade PLLC, Robert Matthew Colone, Teamsters Local 89, David O'Brien Suetholz, Devon Nora Ros Oser, Bra

147 F.Supp.2d 775 (2001) PRIMAX RECOVERIES, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL, Defendant. No. 00-72251. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. May 24, 2001. *776 *777 *778 Thomas B. Bourque, Ann Arbor, MI, for Primax Recoveries, Incor

USCA11 Case: 15-10958 Date Filed: 10/03/2022 Page: 1 of 81 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 15-10958 ____________________ MICHAEL A. MCGUIRE, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross Appellee, ver

70 F.Supp.2d 758 (1999) Felipe ELIZONDO, Olivia Elizondo, Angel Elizondo, Marlen Elizondo, Nancy Elizondo, Karina Elizondo, Sarai Elizondo, Veronica Nino and Juan Nieto, Plaintiffs, v. Floyd Joseph PODGORNIAK and Ronald John Podgorniak, individually and d/b/a Podgorniak Farms, Defendants. No. 98-10235. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division. August 30, 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ANDREW S. HANEN, District Judge. This is a case in which twenty-six states or their representatives are seeking in-junctive relief against the United States and several officials of the Department of Homeland Security to prevent them from implementing a program entitled “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.”1 This p

788 F.Supp. 960 (1992) Colleen R. STORCH and Michael J. Storch, Plaintiffs, v. BEACON HOTEL CORPORATION, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 89-72522. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, S.D. April 6, 1992. *961 Cary S. McGehee, Kelman Loria, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs. Dennis M. Barnes, Barris Sott, Detroit, Mich., Karl M

167 S.W.3d 275 (2005) Bonnie Sue HIGGINS d/b/a American Cab Co. and City Cab Co., Appellant, v. MISSOURI DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent. No. WD 64572. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. July 19, 2005. *276 Austin L. Mitchell, Salem, MO, for Appellant. Ninion S. Riley, Jefferson City, MO, for Responde

341 F.Supp.2d 691 (2004) The EPISCOPAL STUDENT FOUNDATION, d/b/a Canterbury House, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF ANN ARBOR, and The Ann Arbor Historic District Commission, Defendants. No. 03-CV-70150-DT. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. August 24, 2004. *692 *693 Set

BAXTER, J. I respectfully dissent. The majority sanction disobedience of court orders and ignore the limited scope of a proceeding brought under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (RURESA). The holding encourages parents who are subject to child support orders to become scofflaws. It threatens disruption of existing national uniform procedures by which child support orders are enforced. Mo

DAVIS, Justice: This matter involves two consolidated petitions for writs of prohibition filed under the original jurisdiction of this Court. The petition filed in Case No. 13-0086 was brought by the defendants in seven consolidated eases pending before the Circuit Court of Mason County; 1 and the petition in Case No. 1

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. The Plaintiff in this case, Kevin Murray (“Murray” or the “Plaintiff’) commenced this action on September 24, 2009, against the Defendants the Town of North Hemp-stead (the “Town”), the Town of North Hempstead Department of Buildings (the “Department”), the Town of North Hemp-stead Department of Finance (the “Department of Finance”), the Town of North H

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2010 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge. This is a class action by railroad workers formerly employed by the now defunct Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad (Rock Island), whose Tucumcari Line was acquired by St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. (SSW), against defendants United Transportation Union (UTU), SSW, SSWs parent corporation Southern Pacific Transportation Co., and Southern Pacific’s parent corporation Southern Pacific Co. In Ma

972 F.Supp. 1097 (1997) CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, General Motors Corporation, County of Wayne, Michigan, The Charter Township of Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Community Utilities Authority, and the Regents of the University of Michigan, Defendants, and FORD MOTOR COMPANY, General Motors Corporation, County of Wayne, Michigan, The Charter Township of Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Community Utilities Authority, and the Regents o