Cases

OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM: Holding that it lacked federal jurisdiction, the district court dismissed appellants’ action. Mattingly v. Elias, 325 F.Supp. 1374 (E.D.Pa.1971). Appellants claim that various practices of their landlords and the landlords’ employees violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that the district

ACCEPTED 03-14-00661-CV 4504897 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00661-CV Devvy Kidd; et al.,1 Appellants v. Texas Public Utility Commission; AEP Texas Central Company; AEP Texas North Company; CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC; Texas-New Mexico Power Company; and Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC, Appellees FROM

BROWN, Chief Judge. | ]The State of Louisiana through the attorney general filed this action against the Town of Jonesboro seeking the appointment of a fiscal administrator for the Town and the issuance of injunctive relief to prevent the Town, its agents, employees, or others acting on its behalf from incurring debts or obligations, paying debts or obligations, and hiring or contracting without the express approval of the f

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 26, 2012 Session GARY CLARKE v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE ELECTRIC POWER BOARD AS NASHVILLE ELECTRIC SERVICE Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 101521II Carol L. McCoy, Chancellor No. M2011-02607-COA-R3-CV - Filed December 1

2023 IL App (2d) 220180 No. 2-22-0180 Opinion filed August 17, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ DONALD JAMES, as Executor of

ACCEPTED 03-14-00661-CV 3720189 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

WHIPPLE, J., dissenting. Pursuant to Boyd v. Allied Signal, Inc., 03-1840 (La.App. 1st Cir.12/30/04), 898 So.2d 450, writ denied, 05-0191 (La.4/1/05), 897 So.2d 606, appellate review of a trial court’s decision to certify a class action involves a two-part analysis, to-wit: the trial court’s factual findings in the first step of certification are subject to review under the manifest error standar

278 Kan. 769 (2005) 120 P.3d 306 RYAN MONTOY, et al., Appellees/Cross-appellants, v. STATE OF KANSAS, et al., Appellants/Cross-appellees. No. 92,032. Supreme Court of Kansas. Opinion filed January 3, 2005. Curtis L. Tideman, of Lathrop & Gage L.C., of Overland Park, argued the cause, and Kenneth L. Weltz and Alok Ahuja,</

279 Kan. 817 (2005) RYAN MONTOY, et al., Appellees/Cross-appellants, v. STATE OF KANSAS, et al., Appellants/Cross-appellees. No. 92,032 (2005) Supreme Court of Kansas. Opinion filed June 3, 2005. Kenneth L. Weltz, of Lathrop & Gage L.C., of Overland Park, argued the cause, and Curtis L. Tideman, Alok Ahuja, and Jeffrey R. King, of the same f

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 26 2019, 9:08 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing

700 N.W.2d 684 (2005) 2005 ND 123 Lana K. EBACH, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Donald M. EBACH, Defendant and Appellant. No. 20040306. Supreme Court of North Dakota. July 13, 2005. *686 Patricia E. Garrity, Bair, Bair & Garrity, LLP, Mandan, ND, for plaintiff and appellee. Benjamin C. Pulkrabek, Man

Per Curiam,-. This is the fifth time this case has been before this court since the district court sua sponte dismissed the case on November 21,2001. In that initial appeal by the plaintiffs, we reversed the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings in Montoy v. State, 275 Kan. 145, 62 P.3d 228 (2003) (Montoy I). On remand, the district court held that the Kansas School Distr

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 9, 2001 Session IDA DOUGLAS, ET AL. v. WILLIAM O. FOSTER, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Robertson County No. 15187 Carol Catalano, Chancellor No. M2000-03177-COA-R3-CV - Filed January 22, 2002 The appellants, Ida Douglas and Dovie Allen, and appellees, Will

ACCEPTED 03-14-00661-CV 4248396 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support, filed November 4, 2015 (Doc. 22)(“Mo-*1013tion”). The Court held a hearing on December 1, 2015. The primary issues are: (i) whether the propose

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 20a0241p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ALFRED ROSS WINGATE, JR., ┐ Petitioner-Appellant, │ │

327 F.Supp.2d 335 (2004) Wayne SENVILLE; Donald Horenstein; Vermont Public Interest Research Group, Inc.; Friends of the Earth, Inc.; Sierra Club, Inc.; and Conservation Law Foundation, Plaintiffs, v. Mary E. PETERS in her official capacity as Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and Patricia A. McDonald in her official capacity as Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans), Defendants.

GARRETT, J. hBilly Joe (“B.J.”) and Betty Ruth Andrews appeal from a trial court judgment finding that two mineral servitudes, affecting property to which they own the surface rights, have not prescribed from nonuse and are still in effect. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court judgment. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Andrewses own several tracts of land in Sections 32 and 33, T

775 So.2d 783 (2000) Patricia HOBBS v. ALABAMA POWER COMPANY. 1981160. Supreme Court of Alabama. March 24, 2000. Order Overruling Rehearing May 26, 2000. *784 Ralph E. Coleman of Coleman, Friday & Clem, Birmingham, for appellant. Roger L. Bates, I. Ripon Britton, Jr., and Jeffrey D. Dyess of Hand Arend