Cases

Howard W. Brill, Chief Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I ml agree with the majority that the circuit court’s order is final and appeal-able, but I strongly dissent from' the part of the opinion in which the majority decides, sua. sponte, to break from precedent and overrule Layman v. Layman, 292 Ark. 539, 731 S.W.2d 771 (

OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.: D.M. (Appellant) appeals from the July 19, 2013 order denying his petition to de*325termine paternity of three children: G.W., A.M., and D.R.M. We affirm. The trial court summarized the history of this case as follows. In 2000, Appellant and [V.B. (Appel-lee) ] resided in the s

Opinion for the court filed by Chief Judge GINSBURG. GINSBURG, Chief Judge: EchoStar petitions for review of an order of the Federal Communications Commission dismissing the Company’s program access complaint against Comcast Corporation and two of its affiliates, and denying its motion to compel Comcast to produce certain documents. Comcast has intervened and filed a brief in support of the Commission. Be

292 F.3d 749 ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Petitionerv.FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, RespondentsComcast Corporation, et al., Intervenors No. 01-1032. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued February 5, 2002. Decided June 11, 2002. C

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT IN RE: THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE : No. 18 MM 2015 INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : : : PETITION OF: JOSHUA MORROW : ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 26th day of August, 2015, upon the request of the supervising judge for removal of the seal from all matters inv

[Cite as In re A.T., 2019-Ohio-3527.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY : : IN RE: A.T., E.G., & D.G. : Appellate Case Nos. 28332 & 28355 :

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT IN RE: SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, : No. 2 MM 2015 THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE : INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : : : : ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 26th day of

OPINION Slomsky, District Judge TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.;.277 II. BACKGROUND...277 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW.. .279 IV. ANALYSIS...280 *277A. Plaintiff Has Not Plausibly Alleged a Claim of Copyright Infringement Against Fox Defendants.. .280</

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT IN RE: SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, : No. 1 MM 2015 THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE : INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : : : : ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 26th day of

Roe, C.J. This cause coming on to be heard on the joint stipulation of the parties hereto, the Court being fully advised in the premises, finds; That the multiple-party group of Claimants listed herein consists of 540 Claimants seeking individual judgments of varying amounts. These claims, in the aggregate amount of five hundred ninety thousand six hundred thirty-four do

CONSENT JUDGMENT GADOLA, District Judge. This matter having come before the Court upon the stipulation of the parties to the entry of a Consent Judgment finally and fully resolving all of the remaining claims in this action; and It appearing to the Court that this action, initially commenced some twenty-two years ago, involves claims of discrimination based upon gender in hi

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

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

264 F.3d 344 (3rd Cir. 2001) IN RE: ORTHOPEDIC BONE SCREW PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 1014)J.T. Bradley and Kathy W. Bradley, Appellants in No. 00-3899Regina M. Luellen and Eurston Luellen, Sr., Appellants in No. 00-3900Randal Jon Uribe, Appellant in No. 00-3901Mitchell H. Walker and Kim S. Walker, Appellants in No. 00-3902Jose Morfin, Appellant in No. 00-3903Mary K. Mullen Schmelter and Kurt Allen Schmelter, Appel

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

OPINION OF THE COURT REAVLEY, Circuit Judge. This Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) claim against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for granting clearance to market certain types of pedicle screw fixation devices (referred to generally as bone screws) was dismissed by the District Court pursuant to the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.1 Appellants contend here that