Cases

It appears from the record in this case that at and for many years prior to the month of May, 1921, the defendants, I.J. Gray and Ernest Gray, constituting a copartnership, had been engaged in the ice business in Rapid City under the name of Rapid City Ice Company. During the said month of May 1921, the plaintiffs, Newcomer, Miller, Weaver, and one W.F. Hesse decided to go into the ice business in competition with the said Rapid City Ice Company. Pursuant to this plan, they organized a corpor

163 Ariz. 6 (1989) 785 P.2d 575 Tyler McLEOD, a minor, By and Through his guardian ad litem, Nanci SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janis Helen NEWCOMER, a single person, Defendant-Appellee. Nos. 1 CA-CV 88-106, 1 CA-CV 88-201. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department C. September 5, 1989. Review Denied February 6, 1990.

USCA1 Opinion UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 94-1044 EASTERN MOUNTAIN PLATFORM TENNIS, INC., Plaintiff, Appellant, v.

OPINION LOPEZ, Judge. Barbara Templin appeals the grant of two summary judgments in favor of Mountain Bell. We reverse both summary judgment actions. On July 30, 1979, John Toups, then plaintiff’s husband, went to the Alamogordo office of Mountain Bell in order to have the Toups’ telephone disconnected. He informed Mountain Bell that he w

OPINION PER CURIAM. In January 1981, Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company (Mountain Bell) filed an application for a rate increase of $48.3 million, based on a 1981 test year. The Attorney General of New Mexico (Attorney General) moved to intervene in the proceedings on behalf of the State and all New Mexico customers of Mountain Bell not otherwise represented. The Sta

214 Or. 141 (1958) 328 P.2d 314 WRIGHT ET AL v. BLUE MOUNTAIN HOSPITAL DISTRICT ET AL Supreme Court of Oregon. Argued June 11, 1958. Affirmed July 23, 1958. *143 Michael S. Mogan, Canyon City, argued the cause and filed briefs for appellants. Howard A. Rankin, Portland, argued the caus

Russum, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Edward Hoye, trustee under the will of John Hoye, in *337whose place the appellant was substituted, instituted an. ejectment suit in the Circuit Court for Garrett County, to recover from the appellee possession of a tract of land known as “ Lot No 858 ” of the military lots west of Fort Cumberland.

699 F.Supp. 327 (1988) NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, Plaintiff, v. Robert F. BURFORD, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 85-2238. United States District Court, District of Columbia. November 4, 1988. Kathleen C. Zimmerman, Norman L. Dean, Jr., Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Fred R. Disheroon, Susan V. Cook, Pauline H. Milius, Jacques B.

676 F.Supp. 271 (1985) NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, Plaintiff, v. Robert F. BURFORD, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 85-2238. United States District Court, District of Columbia. December 4, 1985. *272 Norman L. Dean, Jr., Kathleen C. Zimmerman, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Susan V. Cook, Pauline

4 F.Supp.2d 843 (1998) Liane FORCE, Lonnie Griffin, Nick Marino, and Otto Ladish, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ITT HARTFORD LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, and Hartford Life Insurance Company, Defendants. Civ. No. 97-1619 RHK/FLN. United States District Court, D. Minnesota. January 26, 1998.

793 F.Supp.2d 1280 (2011) Krystle BERNAL, and Amanda Krol, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. George BURNETT, an individual, William Ojile, an individual, Alta Colleges, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Westwood College, Inc., a Colorado corporation, Trav Corporation, a Colorado corporation d/b/a Westwood College and Westwood College Online, Grant Corporation, a Colorado corporation d/b/a Westwood College,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER KYLE, District Judge. Introduction This case is part of a multidistrict litigation challenging several of the sales practices of Defendants ITT Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company (“IHLA”) and Hartford Life Insurance Company (“HLIC”) (collectively, “ITT Hartford” or the “Defendants”). The Plaintiffs brought a multitude of claims against ITT Hartford ba

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs January 6, 2015 JOSHUA BISHOP v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 11-05560 Lee V. Coffee, Judge No. W2014-00509-CCA-R3-PC - Filed February 25, 2015 The petitioner, Joshua Bishop, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, a

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, et al., Appellants, v. ARIZONA NAVIGABLE STREAM ADJUDICATION COMMISSION, et al., Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV 20-0295 1 CA-CV 20-0296 1 CA-CV 20-0297

On October 20, 1972 plaintiff brought an action against defendants for the wrongful death of William D. Newcom, alleging decedent was killed in an accident November 17, 1969, which was more than two years before the action was initiated. On behalf of defendant Robert L. Keever a motion for summary judgment was made based on the ground that the action was barred by limitations. That motion was granted and summary judgment was entered. Summary judgment based on the same ground wa

983 P.2d 995 (1999) 1999 MT 198 James M. VAN HOOK and Charlene E. Van Hook, Defendants and Appellants, v. Todd JENNINGS, Plaintiff and Respondent. No. 98-620. Supreme Court of Montana. Submitted on Briefs February 11, 1999 Decided August 26, 1999. Quentin M. Rhoades, Sullivan & Tabaracci; Missoula, Montana, For Appellants

USCA11 Case: 21-10539 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 06/01/2023 Page: 1 of 50 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-10539 ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

NO. 96-641 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1997 LAURICE ST. JOHN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MISSOULA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula,

BEAM, Circuit Judge. Amerind Risk Management Corporation (Amerind) is a federally chartered corporation that assumed the rights and obligations of its tribally chartered predecessor, also named Amerind Risk Management Corporation (ARMC). Amerind appeals the federal district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in this declaratory judgment action. Amerind sought a determination in federal district court that the Turtle Mou

MEMORANDUM NEWCOMER, District Judge. Presently before this Court are plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, and defendants’ response thereto, and plaintiffs’ reply thereto, and the parties’ post-hearing memoranda, and the parties’ supplemental briefs, and the various exhibits in support of the aforementioned.1 In addition, a class certification hearing was held on