Cases

400 F.Supp.2d 134 (2005) Besseye NEAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DIRECTOR, D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 93-2420 (RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. November 22, 2005. *135 Ted Justice Williams, Avis E. Buchanan, DC, Public Defender Service, Jeffrey Fred Liss, Mary Elizab

Opinion RUSHING, P. J.— Introduction In this employment case, plaintiff and appellant Nathalie Thuy Van (Van) challenges a trial court’s order sanctioning her and finding her in contempt. The trial court found that Van had disobeyed a prior court order by refusing to attend a deposition noticed by defendant and respondent LanguageLin

EMAS, J. Appellants seek review of a summary final order of dismissal entered by the State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) on a claim for compensation under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (“NICA Plan”). In dismissing the claim, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the claim was time-barred, because it was filed more than five years after the birth of the ch

695 S.E.2d 753 (2010) BOSEMAN v. JARRELL. No. 416PA08-2. Supreme Court of North Carolina. March 30, 2010. John M. Martin, Winterville, for Melissa Ann Jarrell. James W. Lea, III, Wilmington, for Julia Catherine Boseman. Mabel Y. Bullock, Special Deputy Attorney General, for NCDHHS. Jill S. Jackson, Raleigh, for Amicus. Nathalie F.P. Gilfo

696 S.E.2d 700 (2010) BOSEMAN v. JARRELL. No. 416PA08-2. Supreme Court of North Carolina. April 19, 2010. John M. Martin, Winterville, for Melissa Ann Jarrell. James W. Lea, III, Wilmington, for Julia Catherine Boseman. Mabel Y. Bullock, Special Deputy Attorney General, for NCDHHS. Jill S. Jackson, Raleigh, for Amicus. Nathalie F.P. Gilfo

695 S.E.2d 756 (2010) BOSEMAN v. JARRELL. No. 416PA08-2. Supreme Court of North Carolina. April 14, 2010. John M. Martin, Winterville, for Melissa Ann Jarrell. James W. Lea, III, Wilmington, for Julia Catherine Boseman. Mabel Y. Bullock, Special Deputy Attorney General, for NCDHHS. Jill S. Jackson, Raleigh, for Amicus. Nathalie F.P. Gilfo

705 S.E.2d 368 (2010) BOSEMAN v. JARRELL. No. 416PA08-2. Supreme Court of North Carolina. December 15, 2010. John M. Martin, Greenville, for Melissa Ann Jarrell. *369 James W. Lea, III, Wilmington, for Julia Catherine Boseman. Mabel Y. Bullock, Special Deputy Attorney General, for NCDHHS. Jill S. Jackson, Ral

695 S.E.2d 752 (2010) BOSEMAN v. JARRELL. No. 416PA08-2. Supreme Court of North Carolina. March 30, 2010. John M. Martin, Winterville, for Melissa Ann Jarrell. James W. Lea, III, Wilmington, for Julia Catherine Boseman. Mabel Y. Bullock, Special Deputy Attorney General, for NCDHHS. Jill S. Jackson, Raleigh, for Amicus. Nathalie F.P. Gilfo

698 S.E.2d 391 (2010) BOSEMAN v. JARRELL. No. 416PA08-2. Supreme Court of North Carolina. June 16, 2010. John M. Martin, Greenville, for Melissa Ann Jarrell. James W. Lea, III, Wilmington, for Julia Catherine Boseman. Mabel Y. Bullock, Special Deputy Attorney General, for NCDHHS. Jill S. Jackson, Raleigh, for Amicus. Nathalie F.P. Gilfoyl

695 S.E.2d 755 (2010) BOSEMAN v. JARRELL. No. 416PA08-2. Supreme Court of North Carolina. April 14, 2010. John M. Martin, Winterville, for Melissa Ann Jarrell. James W. Lea, III, Wilmington, for Julia Catherine Boseman. Mabel Y. Bullock, Special Deputy Attorney General, for NCDHHS. Jill S. Jackson, Raleigh, for Amicus. Nathalie F.P. Gilfo

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT J. E. F.M., a minor, by and Nos. 15-35738 through his Next Friend, Bob 15-35739 Ekblad; J. F.M., a minor, by and through his Next Friend Bob D.C. No. Ekblad; D. G. F.M., a minor, by 2:14-cv-01026-TSZ and through her Next Friend, Bob Ekblad; F. L.B., a minor, by and through his Next Friend, OPINION Casey Trupin; G. D.S., a minor, by and thro

619 F.Supp.2d 854 (2009) Constance LONDON, Plaintiff, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Defendant. No. C 07-05148 JW. United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. May 28, 2009. *857 Michael Paul Guta, John E. Hill, Law Offices of John E. Hill, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff. Todd Kenneth Boyer, Dennis M. Br

45 So.3d 79 (2010) FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellant, v. In re Matter of ADOPTION OF X.X.G. and N.R.G., Appellees. No. 3D08-3044. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. September 22, 2010. *80 Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Scott D. Makar, Solicitor General, and Timothy D. Osterhaus, Deput

MEMORANDUM MCHUGH, United States District Court Judge This case presents an unusual and disconcerting collision between federal consumer protection laws and the sovereignty of Native American tribes and their courts. Defendants here make “payday” loans across the United States through the Internet, and they seek to have their loan agreements governed by tribal law and challenged only in certain tr

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

727 F.Supp. 276 (1989) FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LOUISVILLE v. Loretta LUSTIG, et al. Civ. A. Nos. 87-5488, 88-1682 and 89-202. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. December 7, 1989. *277 Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann & Hutchinson, William E. Brown, T.A., Barry W. Ashe, New Orleans, La., Wolff Ardis, Patrick M. Ardis

14 A.3d 798 (2011) COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Anthony WRIGHT, Appellant. No. 21 EAP 2008. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued April 14, 2009. Decided February 23, 2011. *799 Sondra R. Rodrigues, Nina Morrison, Pro Hac Vice, for Anthony Wright. *800 Mich

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. DECISION The plaintiffs appeal the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims in which fifteen of the plaintiffs’ cases were dismissed as time-barred. Because the Court of Federal Claims erred by applying the incorrect legal standard for determining when the claims accrued, we vacate and remand. BACKGROUND The Atlantic Intracoastal Wate

MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION JAMES F. HOLDERMAN, Chief Judge: These three consolidated patent cases involve allegations of patent infringement by patent holder CIVIX-DDI, LLC (“CI-VIX”) against CoStar Realty Information, Inc. (“CoStar”) and LoopNet, Inc. (“Loop-Net”). In 12 C 4968, CIVIX alleges that CoStar has infringed three of its patents, U.S. Patent No. 6,385,622 (“the '622 Patent”), U.S. Pat

930 A.2d 946 (2007) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Appellants, v. Peter S. CRAIG, et al., Appellees. District of Columbia, et al., Appellants, v. Polly H. Ernst, et al., Appellees. Nos. 06-TX-177, 06-TX-178. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued January 12, 2007. Decided July 19, 2007. *948 Mar