Cases

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1587 KOLON INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00622-REP)

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2022-NCCOA-57 No. COA20-895 Filed 1 February 2022 Industrial Commission, No. 18-001070 DARRYL RIMMER, Employee, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, Employer, NORTH CAROLINA INTERLOCAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY (NCIRMA), Administered by THE NORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALIT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2022-NCCOA-57 No. COA20-895 Filed 1 February 2022 Industrial Commission, No. 18-001070 DARRYL RIMMER, Employee, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, Employer, NORTH CAROLINA INTERLOCAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY (NCIRMA), Administered by THE NORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALIT

[J-50-2022] [MO: Todd, C.J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT JASMINE WEEKS, ARNELL HOWARD, : No. 22 EAP 2021 PATRICIA SHALLICK, INDIVIDUALLY AND : ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY : Appeal from the order of the SITUATED, : Commonwealth Court dated May 13,

[J-50-2022] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT BAER, C.J., TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, JJ. JASMINE WEEKS, ARNELL HOWARD, : No. 22 EAP 2021 PATRICIA SHALLICK, INDIVIDUALLY AND : ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY : Appeal from the order of the SITUATED, : Commonwea

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 112,765 DIANA K. HILBURN, Appellant, v. ENERPIPE LTD., Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT Section 5 of the Kan

ERVIN, Judge. Defendants Cox Toyota Scion and Stonewood Insurance Company appeal from the Commission order awarding medical and disability benefits to Plaintiff Clifton Bowman. On appeal, Defendants contend that the Commission erred by declining to admit three surveillance videos marked for identification as Defendants’ Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff waived his right to seek Commission review of this issu

Justice HUDSON dissenting. We squarely decided the question presented here in our recent, unanimous decision in Richardson v. Maxim Healthcare/Allegis Group, 362 N.C. 657, 669 S.E.2d 582 (2008). Despite no change to the governing statutory framework, the majority would essentially overrule Richardson just one year later, while claiming not to do so, in order to reach a particular outcome here.

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

938 F.2d 919 60 USLW 2017, 1991-1 Trade Cases 69,460 In re INSURANCE ANTITRUST LITIGATION.ACE CHECK CASHING, INC.; Acme Corrugated Box Company, Inc.;Anastasios Markos, t/a Municipal Exxon; Bay Harbor ParkHomeowner's Association, Inc.; Bensalem Township Authority;Big D Building Supply Corporation, et al., PrivatePlaintiffs, Plaintiffs-Appellants,andState of Alabama, et al., Plaintiffs,

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 606 U. S. Part 2 Pages 831–941 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 27, 2025 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DON’TE LAMONT MCDANIEL, Defendant and Appellant. S171393 Los Angeles County Superior Court No. TA074274-01 August 26, 2021 Justice Liu authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Cantil-Saka

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER J. RONNIE GREER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiffs for class certification, [Docs. 201, 202]. The defendants have responded in opposition, [Doc. 228], and plaintiffs have replied, [Doc. 295]. Plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum in support of the motion for class certification, [Doc. 669], and defendants responded to th

ZARELLA, J., dissenting. "I would think it a violation of my oath to adhere to what I consider a plainly unjustified intrusion [on] the democratic process in order that the [c]ourt might save face. With some reservation concerning decisions that have become so embedded in our system of government that return is no longer possible ... I agree with [United States Supreme Court] Justice [William O.] Douglas: 'A judge lookin

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

[Cite as State v. Miller, 2012-Ohio-1263.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. Nos. 10CA009922 Appellee 10CA009915 v. BOHANNON R. MILLER APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT

798 F.Supp. 313 (1992) Kerwin A. YOST, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN OVERSEAS MARINE CORP., Defendant. No. 2:91cv820. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division. July 15, 1992. *314 Ralph Rabinowitz, Rabinowitz, Rafal, Swartz, Taliaferro & Gilbert, P.C., Norfolk, Va., for plaintiff. A. Jackson Timms, D. Art

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

Jeff Bohm, United States Bankruptcy Judge I. INTRODUCTION The adversary proceeding pending before this Court was filed due to an unscrupulous attorney's theft of $2.4 million. This attorney has no moral compass whatsoever, and his perfidy has resulted in litigation among his former clients, friends, and various third parties who did not have the displeasure of knowing him. While he deservedly spen