Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION CHRISTOPHER J. BURKE, United States Magistrate Judge In these related shareholder derivative suits (referred to herein as the “KBC Action” and the “North Action,” respectively), presently pending before the Court are Plaintiff KBC Asset Management NV’s (“KBC”) “Motion to Consolidate and Appoint Lead Plaintiff, Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel” (“Motion”). (D

Main, J. — The plaintiff brought this action to quiet title to certain real property of which he was in possession and which he claimed to own. The defendant Mildred C. Bustard denied the plaintiff’s right, and asserted ownership to the property. On the issues *267thus framed, the case came on for trial, and resulted in a judgment sustaining the plaintiff’s title. From t

927 P.2d 591 (1996) 324 Or. 445 Roxanne RUSSELL, for herself and all others similarly situated, Petitioner on Review, v. G. Cameron SHEAHAN, Jr., and Sheahan Investment Company, dba Double S Foods, Respondents on Review. CC 92-CV-0067; CA A81742; SC S41379. Supreme Court of Oregon. Argued and Submitted March 6, 1995. Decided December 6,

JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge. The Texas Constitution guarantees a right of action for the recovery of exemplary damages against “every person, *907 corporation, or company, that may commit a homicide, through wilful act, or omission, or gross neglect *

126 P.3d 909 (2006) 2006 WY 14 MULLINNIX LLC, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. HKB ROYALTY TRUST, c/o H. Kirk Brown, III, Trustee; Jaw Royalty Trust, Jill A. Wiltse, Trustee; Louis A. Oswald, III, Trustee of the Oswald Family Trust Dated April 27, 1998; Jonathan S. Roderick; Lynne M. Baalman and Mark E. Baalman, wife and husband; High Plains Associates, Inc.; Jimmie E. Parnell and Nancy Parnell, Husband and Wife; First Interstate

CONTENTS Issues Page (1) I.R.C. § 51 Tax Surcharge 425 (2) I.R.C. § 421(b) Deduction 425 (3) Air Craft Leases 425 (4) I.R.C. §§ 921, 922 (WHTC) 425 (5) Bad Debt Deduction (SCORE) 425 (6) Investment Tax Credits for Films 425 (7) Computational Adjustments 426 (8) Title Plant Leas

OPINION PHILIP R. MILLER, Judge: This is a suit for refund of taxes for the year 1976, allegedly erroneously collected under the unrelated business taxable income provisions, 26 U.S.C. §§ 511-513 (1982), of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code. The question at issue is whether or not the income from some of the plaintiff’s research contracts for government and business was derived from trade or business unrelat

150 Ariz. 274 (1986) 723 P.2d 92 Mildred McLAUGHLIN, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Philip FAHRINGER, Judge of the Superior Court of Pima County, Respondent, and The STATE of Arizona, Real Party in Interest. No. CV-86-0239-SA. Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc. July 29, 1986. *275 Frederic J. Dardis, Pima Co

OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL R. BARRETT, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue Pursu*638ant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Doc. 13). Plaintiff has filed a memorandum in opposition (Doc. 22), and Defendants have filed a reply (Doc. 25). Defendants also have filed a notice of supplemental authority

Lynch, J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed June 26, 2013, which ruled, among other things, that claimant had involuntarily retired. Claimant had worked for the employer as a bank teller for 22 years when she sustained a work-related injury to her back in 2009. She never returned to work and her claim for workers’ compensation benefits was established. Claimant retired in 2012

Lynch, J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed June 26, 2013, which ruled, among other things, that claimant had involuntarily retired. Claimant had worked for the employer as a bank teller for 22 years when she sustained a work-related injury to her back in 2009. She never returned to work and her claim for workers’ compensation benefits was established. Claimant retired in 2012

130 Ariz. 9 (1981) 633 P.2d 418 Hazel REGISTER, Mildred Jo Parry, Mabel Hart and Mary Jennings, Appellees, v. John Curtis COLEMAN, Appellant. No. 15067. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. July 31, 1981. Rehearing Denied September 15, 1981. *11 Fenton J. McDonough, Scottsdale, for appellant

154 Ariz. 207 (1987) 741 P.2d 674 Mildred RASMUSSEN by Douglas P. MITCHELL, her Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. Robert FLEMING, Pima County Public Fiduciary, as Guardian for Mildred Rasmussen, Appellee. No. CV-86-0450-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc. July 23, 1987. *211 John J. Jakubczyk, Phoenix, A

216 S.W.3d 98 (2005) Lynn Carl MIDDLETON, Joyce L. Middleton, Kenneth G. Middleton, Law Office of Christopher O'Hara Carter, Appellants, v. Geraldine LOCKHART, Mildred M. Anderson, Joyce M. Henson, Jessie J. Brewer, Appellees. No. 04-473. Supreme Court of Arkansas. October 20, 2005. *99 Appellant, Kenneth G. Middleton, Cameron, p

The controversy is as to the disposition of the moneys produced by the trustee's sale of the encumbered land in excess of what is required to discharge the principal sum loaned and interest at the stipulated rate accrued to the sale and receipt of the purchase money. (57) The defendants contended that, by the terms of the contract as expressed in the larger bond and more explicitly in the deed, each one of the bonds, those representing future interest as well as the other, became du

PER CURIAM: Grady and Lillie Auvil et al., suing on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated Washington State apple growers (“growers”), appeal from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of CBS “60 Minutes” (“CBS”). The district court held that the growers failed to prove the falsity of the message conveyed by the “60 Minutes” broadcast of “ ‘A’ is for Apple,” which concerned the use of Alar, a chemical spr

109 Ariz. 82 (1973) 505 P.2d 253 CITY OF TUCSON, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. Eugene C. RICKLES and Mildred Rickles, husband and wife, Appellees. No. 10629-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. January 8, 1973. Herbert E. Williams, City Atty., J. Dan O'Neill, Asst. City Atty., Tucson, for appellant. Stubbs & Stephens, P.

With reference to division 4 of the opinion which concerns special ground 12, it is true as stated by the defendant that "the failure to cross-examine the rebutting witnesses is legitimate ground for argument." Frank v. State,141 Ga. 243 (13), 246 (80 S.E. 1016). However, the law condemns the injection into the argument of extrinsic and prejudicial matters which have no basis in the evidence.Cammons

154 Ariz. 594 (1987) 744 P.2d 695 Mildred JAMES, the surviving spouse of Maurice James, deceased, on her own Behalf and for and on Behalf of Linda Bell, Ronald James, and Gerald V. James, the surviving children of Maurice James, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PHOENIX GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC., an Arizona corporation; Osteopathic Surgeons, Ltd., an Arizona corporation; Robert Ostwinkle, Defendants-Appellees. Rafaela PARICH, the sur

125 Ariz. 543 (1980) 611 P.2d 547 Peter P. JESIK, father of Peter P. Jesik, II, Deceased, and Personal Representative of the Estate of Peter P. Jesik, II, Appellant, v. MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT; Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District; Dwight Patterson, Paul J. Wright, W. James Miller, Kenneth R. Badertscher, and Jeremy E. Butler, Individually and as members of the Governing Boar