Cases

795 F.Supp.2d 587 (2011) Daniel G. POWELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Felix Patrick KEELEY, Jr., Defendant. Civil Action No. C-10-219. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Corpus Christi Division. June 9, 2011. *588 John Blaise Gsanger, The Edwards Law Firm, Corpus Christi, TX, Terry Burnet, Menees Whitney et al., St. Louis Clay

630 F.Supp.2d 680 (2009) CYTEC INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. Joseph P. POWELL, Defendant. Civil Action No. 1:08CV218. United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia. June 19, 2009. *682 Eric E. Kinder, Spilman Thomas & Battle PLLC, Charleston, WV, for Plaintiff. L. Walt Auvil, Rusen & Au

391 F.Supp.2d 30 (2005) Shawn KEELEY, Plaintiff, v. Lawrence M. SMALL, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution, Defendant. No. CIV.A.01-0725 JDB. United States District Court, District of Columbia. August 30, 2005. *31 *32 *33 *34</

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about April 28, 1999, which, in an action for *300personal injuries sustained in a trip and fall caused by a pothole in a parking lot owned and managed by nonappealing defendants, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant owner’s motion for summary judgment on its cross claim against defendant-appellant maintenance contracto

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JANIE COLE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Case No. 07-1829 (RJL) ) EARL A. POWELL III,

605 F.Supp.2d 20 (2009) Janie COLE, Plaintiff, v. Earl A. POWELL III, Director of the National Gallery of Art, Defendant. Civil Case No. 07-1829 (RJL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. March 17, 2009. *22 Kevin E. Byrnes, Grad, Logan & Klewans, P.C., Falls Church, VA, for Plaintiff. Harry B. Roback,

80 N.W.2d 707 (1957) 163 Neb. 613 Emil H. MUELLER, and Charles J. Mueller, Appellants, v. Eugene P. KEELEY, Appellee. No. 34053. Supreme Court of Nebraska. January 25, 1957. *708 Charles A. Fisher, Chadron, Dean L. Donoho, Valentine, for appellants. William B. Quigley, Valentine, Davis, Healey, Davi

BEEZER, Circuit Judge, Dissenting: Keeley Tatsuyo Hunter appeals the district court’s determination that the use of a racially classified admissions procedure at the Corrine A. Seeds University Elementary School (“UES”) does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I write separately to express my fundamental disagreement with the court’s opinion. It contravene

Upon a former appeal of this cause, the judgment of the lower court was reversed, and a new trial ordered. (Mannix v. PowellCounty, 60 Mont. 510, 199 P. 914.) The second trial resulted in a judgment in favor of the county, and plaintiff has appealed. Without substantial controversy, the record discloses that in 1898 Joseph Sturgeon received from the state a lease upon school section 36, tow

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion and petition for a rehearing and reconsideration in the above matter be, and the same is hereby denied. Carl Lindquist, Chief Justice, Hugh R. Adair, Edwin K. Cheadle, Associate Justices. *Page 631 We dissent: C.F. Morris, Albert H. Angstman, Associate Justices. Dated this 2nd day of January, 1947.

Relator's application for a writ of mandate herein is denied.

This action was instituted by the plaintiff to recover taxes which were paid under protest for the year 1924. The property assessed, and upon which the tax was paid, was of four separate kinds, viz.: (1) Certain machinery and electrical appliances located in plaintiff's substation, required and used therein in the transformation of electrical current, used in the operation of the plaintiff's trains by electricity; (2) a certain engine with pumps and pipes for the pumping of water for

Timlin, J. The demurrer must he taken to admit the good character, chastity, and good reputation of the plaintiff and the falseness of the accusations against her contained in the affidavit of Sandager, also the agency of the defendant’s attorneys for defendant in procuring and filing this affidavit and the ratification by defendant of their acts in so doing by neglect, after notice, to take any action to withdraw or repudiate sa

SUSAN ILLSTON, United States District Judge On March 2, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the motion by defendant Truven Health Analytics ("Truven") for attorneys' fees and nontaxable expenses related to Truven's defense against plaintiff Cave Consulting Group's ("CCGroup") assertion of U.S. Patent No. 8,340,981

351 F.Supp.2d 1090 (2004) CORBIS CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, et al., Defendants. No. CV03-1415L. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle. December 21, 2004. *1091 *1092 Brett Wade Sommermeyer, Gordon & Pol

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 5D2023-3576 LT Case No. 2021-CA-53554 _____________________________ SOUTHERN-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY and GRANVILLE RICHARDSON, Appellants, v. LORIE MCCOY, as personal representative of the Estate of Leonard A. Pallay, Jr. Appellee. _____________________________ Nonfinal A

[Cite as In re O.V., 2019-Ohio-4628.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY IN RE: : O.V. : CASE NO. CA2019-03-046 : OPINION

[Cite as Gordon v. Mt. Carmel Farms, L.L.C., 2021-Ohio-1233.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLERMONT COUNTY JASON GORDON, et al., : : CASE NO . CA2020-09-054 Appellees, : OPINION -

PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, the Appellants appeal a district court judgment adopting a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation and dismissing their complaint. The Appellants further appeal the district court’s order denying a motion filed under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and other orders concerning sanctions. We have reviewed the record and the district court orders and aff

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT NO. 105] IRENE M. KEELEY, District Judge. Pending before the Court is the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (dkt. *515no. 105) as to the individual plaintiffs’ claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress (“outrage”) against the individual