Cases

695 F.Supp.2d 600 (2010) Joseph MURPHY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant. Civil No. 08-15170. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. March 9, 2010. *601 Mark K. Wasvary, Becker and Wasvary, Troy, MI, for Plaintiffs. Benjamin W. Jeffers, Dykema Gossett, Detroit, MI,

PER CURIAM. , Daniel Proctor, an Illinois prisoner who was confined for seven years at Hill Correctional Center, suffers from chronic abdominal pain and spasms in his colon. He sued a number of medical providers working at Hill for Wexford Health Sources— the contractor providing healthcare to Illinois prisoners—as well as several corrections officials, claiming that they violated the Eighth Amendment by not ordering a colono

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING REPORT ■ AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge. I. SUMMARY Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 116) (“R & R”) relating to plaintiffs' Dispositive Motion (dkt. no. 75) and defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) (dkt. no

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 16‐1942 DANIEL PROCTOR, Plaintiff‐Appellant, v. KUL SOOD, et al., Defendants‐Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

661 F.Supp.2d 743 (2009) Fred Cortland PROCTOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. L. APPLEGATE, et al., Defendants. Case No. 07-12414. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. September 30, 2009. *753 Fred Proctor, Coldwater, MI, pro se. Perry Alva Hurd, Jr., Manitou Beach, MI, pro se. Gilbert Jividen, M

LUCERO, Circuit Judge. This case lies at the intersection of evolving circuit jurisprudence on judicial review of employee disability claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Pamela A. Ray, a partner at a national law firm, filed suit against UNUM Life Insurance Company of America (“UNUM”) under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, seeking long-term disability ben

627 F.Supp.2d 1287 (2008) The PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Randy L. HAUGEN, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:95-CV-94 TS. United States District Court, D. Utah, Northern Division. June 20, 2008. *1289 Bill Markovits, Stanley M. Chesley, Fay E. Stilz, Gordon C. Greene, Paul M. De Marco, Robert Heuck, II, Ther

411 So.2d 669 (1982) Rita Schneider, Wife of/and Joseph SCHNEIDER v. PROCTOR AND GAMBLE MANUFACTURING CO., INC., Proctor and Gamble Distributing Co., Inc., and Commercial Union Assurance Companies. No. 12382. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. March 9, 1982. *670 Charles A. Boggs, Boggs, Loehn & Rodrigue, New Orlea

992 F.Supp. 156 (1998) David PROCTOR, Plaintiff, v. VADLAMUDI, Dr.; Marcy Correctional Facility and Counterparts, Defendants. No. 96-CV-248 (RSP/DNH). United States District Court, N.D. New York. February 2, 1998. *157 David Proctor, Marcy, NY, pro se. Dennis C. Vacco, New York State Attorney General, Albany, NY (James B.

ORDER SAM SPARKS, District Judge. BE IT REMEMBERED on the 8th day of January 2015, the Court held a hearing in the above-styled cause, and the parties appeared by and through counsel. Before the Court are OneBeacon America Insur■ance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment [# 56], Third Party Plaintiff, L. Ray Calhoun & Co., d/b/a Calhoun and Company, et al.’s Responses [## 63, 69],

158 F.Supp.2d 1286 (2001) The PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY and The Procter & Gamble Distributing Company, Plaintiffs, v. Randy L. HAUGEN et al., Defendants. No. 1:95CV94K. United States District Court, D. Utah, Northern Division. June 7, 2001. Robert S. Campbell, Jr., Berman, Gaufin Tomsic & Savage, Salt Lake City, UT, Thomas S. Calder, John E. Jevicky, Robe

368 S.C. 279 (2006) 628 S.E.2d 496 Doug PROCTOR d/b/a Anderson Tire Recycling, Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, Appellant. No. 4098. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Heard March 8, 2006. Decided March 20, 2006. *287 James W. Logan, Jr. and Stacey T. Coffee,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER KIMBALL, District Judge. The allegations of The Procter & Gamble Company and The Procter & Gamble Distributing Company (collectively, “P & G”) have been previously chronicled. See Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 947 F.Supp. 1551 (D.Utah 1996). Presently before the court, and considered in turn in this order, are seven primary motions, as well as a var

MEMORANDUM OPINION NEESE, District Judge. This is a removed, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), action for personal injuries, predicated on the diverse citizenship of the parties, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) (1), (e). The defendant has moved with supporting affidavits for a summary-judgment, Rule 56(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is stipulated that the plaintiff has no proof to offer, except that

80 F.Supp.2d 639 (1999) The PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMWAY CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. H-97-2384. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. April 26, 1999. *640 *641 *642

WEINFELD, District Judge. The defendant moves to vacate eleven of twenty-two interrogatories propounded by the plaintiff, the answers to which it asserts would disclose in advance of trial its trade secrets in the research, testing, development and processing of various urea-formaldehyde foams and derivatives of urea and/or formaldehyde. The plaintiff urges that good cause is shown for disclosure at this time and asserts tha

682 F.2d 1237 9 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1511 Frederick HOPTOWIT, Rick Rinier, Steven Hopkins, DavidRivera, Robert Smith, Leo Victoria, Tim Adamson, LarryCamarillo, Daniel Atteberry, Carl Harp, Gary Isaacs, LynnBrooks, Daniel Clark, Manuel Rampola, John Wait, and KennethHolden, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.Dixy Lee RAY, Gerald Thompson, John Shaughnessey, RobertTropp, W. Edward Naugler, M.D., James Spal

WALLACE, Circuit Judge: Certain inmates at the Washington State Penitentiary (the penitentiary) brought suit against the Governor of the State of Washington and various officials of the State of Washington corrections system (the State), alleging that conditions at the penitentiary amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment,1 which applies to the states through

Paul Tevis filed his original action for damages for personal injuries against Proctor Gamble Distributing Company and J.G. Crihfield in the Second circuit court of Knox county. He sought a recovery in the amount of $50,000 on account of personal injuries received on the night of March 6, 1936, as a result of being struck by an automobile owned by Proctor Gamble Distributing Company and driven by J.G. Crihfield at the time of the accident while in the discharge of his duties as an employee

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge. Defendant, Phillip Ray Jeter, appeals from his conviction on two substantive counts and one conspiracy count for illicitly obtaining and participating in the distribution of imprinted carbon sheets used in the typing of secret grand jury documents and proceedings. The three charges against Jeter were contained in an eight-count indictment also charging three other individuals, James Purdy Lambert, An