Cases

595 A.2d 416 (1991) Kenneth CLARK v. RUST ENGINEERING CO., et al. Kathy DOSTIE v. S.D. WARREN CO. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Argued May 20, 1991. Decided July 26, 1991. *417 Maurice A. Libner (orally), McTeague, Higbee, Libner, MacAdam, Case & Watson, Topsham, for Employees. John A. Woodcock, Jr., Weather

264 F.3d 344 (3rd Cir. 2001) IN RE: ORTHOPEDIC BONE SCREW PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 1014)J.T. Bradley and Kathy W. Bradley, Appellants in No. 00-3899Regina M. Luellen and Eurston Luellen, Sr., Appellants in No. 00-3900Randal Jon Uribe, Appellant in No. 00-3901Mitchell H. Walker and Kim S. Walker, Appellants in No. 00-3902Jose Morfin, Appellant in No. 00-3903Mary K. Mullen Schmelter and Kurt Allen Schmelter, Appel

CORRIGAN, J., Concurring.—I concur in the majority opinion but write separately to address the observations put forward in the concurring opinion of my colleague. The separate opinion emphasizes the “relevance” of the fact that two previous juries were unable to reach a verdict without the bite mark *316evidence. (Cone. opn. of Liu, J., post, at p. 320.) To co

820 F.Supp. 1519 (1993) ABRAMS & WOFSY, et al. v. RENAISSANCE INVESTMENT CORPORATION, et al. Kathy J. PIGNATELLI, et al. v. RENAISSANCE INVESTMENT CORPORATION, et al. Fred A. ACHECAR, et al. v. RENAISSANCE INVESTMENT CORPORATION, et al. Edmund S. PENDLETON, et al. v. RENAISSANCE INVESTMENT CORPORATION, et al. Civ. Nos. 1:87-cv-1931-WCO, 1:87-cv-1962-WCO, 1:87-cv-2074-WCO and 1:87-cv-24

ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV

465 F.3d 46 Kent PAPINEAU, Plaintiff,Nedrick Ashton, Clay Rockwell, Abilene Rockwell, Houston Rockwell, Onenhaida Rockwell and Juanita Lewis, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants,Shawn Jones, Andrew Jones, Stonehorse Goeman, Marie Peters, Wealthy Bucktooth, individually and as guardian ad litem for Holly Lyons, Robert E. Bucktooth Jr., Cheryl Bucktooth, individually and as guardian ad litem for Nadine and Rob Bucktooth, Martha Bucktooth, Roberta B

ACCEPTED 15-25-00012-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 3:13 PM No. 15-25-00012-CV

Per Curiam. *1021The moving papers indicate that despite written notices sent to them by the Office of Court Administration at their last known address, respondents have failed to register and pay the required fee. Judiciary Law § 468-a (5) provides that noncompliance with the statute and rules regarding attorney registration “shall constitute conduc

Per Curiam. *1021The moving papers indicate that despite written notices sent to them by the Office of Court Administration at their last known address, respondents have failed to register and pay the required fee. Judiciary Law § 468-a (5) provides that noncompliance with the statute and rules regarding attorney registration “shall constitute conduc

Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed November 4, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court

ACCEPTED 03-15-00348-CV 6616789 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

Reversed and Remanded and Opinion filed December 21, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court Harr

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3134 ___________________________ Craig Lyons, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated; Justin Anderson, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated; Tommy Applegate, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated; Brandon Etzkorn, I

92 B.R. 297 (1988) In re SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL BANKING CORPORATION, Debtor. Thomas E. DUVOISIN, Liquidating Trustee, Plaintiff, v. William and Hazel ANDERSON, et al., Defendants. Adv. No. 3-83-00372. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee. October 14, 1988. *298 J. Thomas Jones, Doris C. Allen, John A. Lucas, Jeffrey S.

SACK, Circuit Judge: In this litigation, judgment creditors of the Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”) attempt to execute on $1.68 billion in bond proceeds allegedly owned by Iran’s central bank. The Supreme Court has instructed that in an execution proceeding concerning a foreign sovereign’s assets, any defense predicated on foreign sovereign immunity must rise or fall on the text of the Foreign Sovereign

449 F.Supp.2d 1 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, and Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, and National African American Tobacco Prevention Network, Intervenors, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., (f/k/a Philip Morris, Inc.), et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 99-2496(GK). United States Distri

15‐0690 Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 August Term, 2015 4 (Argued: June 8, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2017*) 5

SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judge. Individual state defendants-cross-defendants-appellants-cross-appellees James J. Parmley et al. (the “defendants”) appeal from the March 28, 2005 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Scullin, C.J.), Jones v. McMahon, No. 98-CV-374, 2005 WL 928667 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2005), which denied defendants’ summary judgment motion for qualified immunity on plai

NlMS, Judge: In these consolidated cases, respondent determined aggregate deficiencies in excess of $61 million in petitioners’ Federal income taxes for the years 1975 through 1980.2 Each of the petitioners in these cases entered into a series of transactions herein sometimes referred to for convenience as the London Options Transaction. Th

OPINION OF THE COURT REAVLEY, Circuit Judge. This Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) claim against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for granting clearance to market certain types of pedicle screw fixation devices (referred to generally as bone screws) was dismissed by the District Court pursuant to the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.1 Appellants contend here that