Cases

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

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

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

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

9 F.3d 849 William T. USELTON; W.D. Hupp; C.J. Dowling; KennethMiles; G.D. Jeffcoat; Jack Wilson; K.D. Witt; PaulaRosa; Johnny S. Hunt; James A. Mason; Robert E. Stuart;Jerry Don Casey; Maurice Uhrmacher; Loyd A. Duncan;Vernon Jordan; Hubert D. Williamson; J.W. Haris; D.L.Haralson; Harvey Leo Hess; Wood G. Ishmael; Harold W.Summers; Charles E. Stockton; Joe C. Gray; Earl G.Jackson; E.L. Whilhock; M

MEMORANDUM GREGORY M. SLEET, Chief Judge. I.INTRODUCTION In this correction of inventorship action, plaintiffs W. Norman Scott, M.D., (“Dr. Scott”) and Giles R. Scuderi, M.D., (“Dr. Scuderi” or collectively, “the plaintiffs”) seek to add themselves as inventors of U.S. Patent No. 6,123,729, U.S. Patent No. 6,402,786, and U.S. Patent No. 6,319,283 (“the patents”) presently assig

174 F.3d 1087 160 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2650, 137 Lab.Cas. P 10,390,23 Employee Benefits Cas. 1073, 1999 CJ C.A.R. 1703 Terry A. GARVIN; John McGrail; Ferdnand Adamson; EdithAitken; Marva Akins; Douglas R. Allen; Shirley Allen;Loren Alm; Sheila Altman; Cornelious Anderson; Peggy C.Anderson; Claudette B. Anterin; Esther Arnold; Kenneth G.Arsenault; Jerry M. Ashley; Lindy Ashley; Johnice M.

ACCEPTED 04-15-00469-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 9/3

445 So.2d 490 (1984) Nelda REYNOLDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WAL MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellant. No. 15908-CA. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit. January 16, 1984. *492 Lunn, Irion, Switzer, Johnson & Salley by Frank M. Walker, Jr., Shreveport, for defendant-appellant. Watson, Murchison, Crews, Arthur

MEMORANDUM2 Appellants appeal pro se the district court’s dismissal of their action with prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s order to provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) dismissal and affirm.

410 F.Supp. 770 (1975) A. C. SHERRILL, Plaintiff, and Robert H. Costner et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. J. P. STEVENS AND COMPANY, INC., Defendant. Civ. A. No. C-C-73-12. United States District Court, W. D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division. November 11, 1975. *771 *772

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH MAR 5 1999 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS PATRICK FISHER Clerk

ACCEPTED 07-14-00405-CV SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS AMARILLO, TEXAS 2/18/2015 4:43:44 PM

940 F.2d 564 60 USLW 2075, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,097,13 Employee Benefits Ca 2473 William T. USELTON; W.D. Hupp; C.J. Dowling; KennethMiles; G.D. Jeffcoat; Jack Wilson; K.D. Witt; PaulaRosa; Johnny S. Hunt; James A. Mason; Robert E. Stuart;Jerry Don Casey; Maurice Uhrmacher; Loyd A. Duncan;Vernon Jordan; Hubert D. Williamson; J.W. Haris; D.L.Haralson; Harvey Leo Hess; Wood G. I

LOGAN, Circuit Judge. This appeal concerns the proper award of attorneys’ fees out of a common fund created when the plaintiff class settled its underlying litigation with defendants. Class counsel, appellants herein, submitted a fee request for fifty percent of the settlement fund, which was formally opposed by separate counsel *853representing class members who obje

KANE, Senior District Judge. This appeal arises out of an action brought by more than four hundred former employees of Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. against their former employer and others alleging violations of federal and Oklahoma securities law and common law fraud. After a segmented trial to the court on the issue of whether an interest in the instrument at issue, an employee stock ownership plan, constituted a security und

BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge. Terry A. Garvin, et al., (collectively “Appellants”) appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT & T) on their claims to recover termination allowances brought pursuant to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Facts Appellant

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