Cases

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-24-00093-CV NHUNG THI NGUYEN AND HA PHU TRIEU, APPELLANTS V. HOANG NGUYEN, LANA DZUONG, ALEX MARK REAL ESTATE LLC, THE REALTORS NETWORK, INC. AND GREEN HOME CAPITAL LLC, APPELLEES On Appeal from the 84th Distr

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-24-00093-CV NHUNG THI NGUYEN AND HA PHU TRIEU, APPELLANTS V. HOANG NGUYEN, LANA DZUONG, ALEX MARK REAL ESTATE, LLC, THE REALTORS NETWORK, INC., AND GREEN HOME CAPITAL LLC, APPELLEES On Appeal

Judge Max N. Tobias, Jr. _JjThe defendant, AAA Bui, Inc. (“Triple A”), appeals the trial court judgment holding it vicariously liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff, David Robinson, as a result of an intentional tort caused by an unidentified assailant whom the trial judge found to be an employee of Triple A. Finding Mr, Robinson failed to,carry his burden of proving vicarious liability, for the following reasons, we r

OPINION COLE, Circuit Judge. Andy Nguyen was convicted in Michigan state court of assault with intent to commit murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, stemming from a dispute with his then-wife at her place of employment. Nguyen, as well as many of the witnesses against him at trial, are not native English speakers, but the trial court did not consistently provide a translat

[Cite as Nguyen v. Chen, 2014-Ohio-5188.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY PHOUNG T. NGUYEN, et al., : CASE NO. CA2013-10-191 Plaintiffs-Appellees, : OPINION

[Cite as Nguyen v. Chen, 2014-Ohio-5188.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY PHOUNG T. NGUYEN, et al., : CASE NO. CA2013-10-191 Plaintiffs-Appellees, : OPINION

AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed August 28, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00741-CV QUI PHUOC HO, MAU THI NGUYEN AND TONG HO, Appellants V. MACARTHUR RANCH, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Filed 1/5/22 Certified for Publication 1/28/22 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ---- CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE C093293 OFFICERS ASSOCIATION BENEFIT TRUST FUND et al., (WCAB Nos.

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-24-00059-CV __________________ SUNBELT RENTALS, INC. AND DANIEL BURGE JR., Appellants V. JAMES GILLESPIE, ET AL, Appellees _________________________________

OPINION Opinion By Justice MURPHY. Qui Phuoc Ho and Tong Ho appeal the trial court’s judgment in favor of MacArthur Ranch, LLC on its fraudulent transfer claims under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. See Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. §§ 24.001-.013 (West 2009) (TUFTA). Appellants complain in three issues a

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUN PETER CHHOUN, Defendant and Appellant. S084996 San Bernardino County Superior Court FSB08658 February 11, 2021 Justice Corrigan authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Can

OPINION AND ORDER A class of immigrant workers from China in CA No. 68-99 (“the Chinese workers”) filed suit against defendants Daewoosa Samoa, Ltd. (“Daewoosa Samoa”) and Kil-Soo Lee (“Lee”) for allegedly breaching terms of their employment contracts, and committing other civil wrongs, all stemming from their employment at the Daewoosa Samoa garment factory in American Samoa. Later, a class of immigrant workers fr

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUN PETER CHHUON and SAMRETH SAM PAN, Defendants and Appellants. S105403 Los Angeles County Superior Court KA032767 June 1, 2026 Justice Groban authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and J

EBEL, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs, a group of former employees of Defendant Lucent Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”), sued Defendant in state court for fraud arising out of alleged misrepresentations made in encouraging Plaintiffs to take an early retirement benefits package. Defendant removed the case to federal court on the basis of complete preemption under the Employee Retire