Cases

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL XI APELACIÓN NORFE GROUP CORP. Procedente del Tribunal de Apelante Primera Instancia, Sala de San Juan v. KLAN202401088 Caso Nú

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL XI APELACIÓN NORFE GROUP CORP. Y Procedente del OTROS Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Sala Apelantes KLAN202400922 Superior de

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL III NORFE GROUP CORP. Certiorari procedente del RECURRIDA Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Sala

ESTADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL IV NEW CENTURY CERTIORARI FINANCE CORP. acogido como Apelación, Apelado procedente del Tribunal de v. P

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL I Certiorari procedente del BANCO POPULAR DE Tribunal de Primera PUERTO RICO Instancia, Sala de KLCE202401117 Guaynabo Demandante - Apelada

606 F.3d 1142 (2010) UNITED STATES of America; California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Plaintiffs-Appellees, APW North America; Cardinal Industrial Finishes; Eemus Manufacturing Corp.; International Medication Systems, Ltd.; Norf James Jebbia Testamentary Trust; Roc-Aire Corporation; Janneberg Marital Trust; Smittybilt, Inc.; Southern California Edison Company; Andruss Family Trust, Defendants-Appellees, v. AEROJET GENERAL CORP.; A

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL I Certiorari BANCO POPULAR DE procedente del PUERTO RICO Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Sala de Demandante - Apelado KLAN202500479 San Juan v. Caso núm.:

627 F.Supp. 434 (1986) Emil V. REAL, Plaintiff, v. The CONTINENTAL GROUP, INC., a corporation, and Continental Can Company, a corporation, Defendants. No. C-83-2871. United States District Court, N.D. California. January 17, 1986. *435 *436 *437 Orrick, Her

OPINION OF THE COURT Garry, J. Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court (Rumsey, J.), entered July 8, 2016 in Tompkins County, which, among other things, (1) denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in the action, and (2) partially dismissed petitioners’ application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to enjoin responden

804 F.Supp. 1471 (1992) PULTE HOME CORPORATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. PLY GEM INDUSTRIES, INC., Hoover Treated Wood Products, Inc., Johnson Controls, Inc., Georgia Pacific Corporation, Lowe's Companies, Inc., and its subsidiaries, including Lowe's of Florida, Inc., Lowe's of Georgia, Inc. and Lowe's Investment Corporation, Defendants. No. 89-205-CIV-T-17A. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tamp

*174 LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Defendant Alfredo Pacheco-Martinez was convicted of various offenses arising from his multiyear effort to swindle scores of unsuspecting victims out of over a million dollars and to manipulate the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in order to shield his ill-gotten gains from creditors. He

ESTADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL X MADELEINE CANDELARIO Certiorari DEL MORAL procedente del Tribunal de Recurrida Primera Instancia, Sala TA2

LYNCH, Circuit Judge. This case requires us to address what is meant by de novo judicial review under ERISA of a denial of benefits when the ERISA plan does not preserve discretion in the plan administrator. That raises concomitant questions of whether the claimant is entitled to trial in the district court and what, if any, evidence may be admitted that is not in the administra

742 F.Supp.2d 681 (2010) Kenneth HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. BLALOCK ELECTRIC SERVICE, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 08-90J. United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania. September 21, 2010. *684 Homer L. Walton, Tucker Arensberg, Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiff. Thomas R. Davies, Harmon & Davies, Lancaster, PA, for Def

740 F.Supp. 470 (1990) David HARTZLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The LICKING COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY, et al., Defendants. No. C2-88-884. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, E.D. June 29, 1990. *471 Angelo F. Lonardo and Leonard W. Yelsky, Yelsky & Lonardo, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiffs. Gregory D. Rankin, Lane, Alton

717 F.Supp. 799 (1989) Edith KENNAN, as personal representative of George Kennan, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al., Defendants. No. 86-69-Civ-J-14. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division. July 20, 1989. *800 Wayne Hogan, Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff. Charles C. Howell, II

327 F.Supp. 1034 (1971) UNITED STATES of America v. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY et al. Civ. A. No. 638-70-R. United States District Court, E. D. Virginia, Richmond Division. May 4, 1971. As Modified May 17, 1971. *1035 *1036 David L. Rose, Steven B. Glassman, Kurt H. S

69 F.Supp.2d 582 (1999) Kathleen Madaline JARVIS, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant. No. 92 Civ. 2900(NRB). United States District Court, S.D. New York. October 27, 1999. *583 *584 Brian P. Crosby, Gibson, McAskill & Crosby, Buffalo, NY, for defendant. George N. Tompkins,

REARNED HAND, District Judge (after stating the facts as above). [1] The first question arises under the plaintiff’s appeal and brings up the meaning and validity of the “no recourse” clause. The plaintiff’s idea that the stockholders’ liability is not an obligation founded on the bonds, but only on the statute, seems to us verbal and scholastic. The statute is a necessary factor of the obligation, to be s

ACCEPTED 14-14-00855-cv FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/18/2015 12:34:30 PM