Cases

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT SHANE HENRY a/k/a ROBERT STEVE PERKINS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D19-1347 [November 20, 2019] Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth

KEARSE, Circuit Judge: Defendants Lester J. Forst and other present and former officials of the Connecticut State Police (“State Police”) appeal from so much of an order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, T.F. Gilroy Daly, Judge, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing claims brought principally under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT IGOR SUSHKO and AUTOMOTIVE NETWORK, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Appellants, v. HENRY VANVURST, et al., Appellees. No. 4D21-3162 [September 30, 2022] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventee

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. ROBERT JEAN MORRIS, Appellee. No. 4D2023-0117 [March 6, 2024] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Marin

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT PATRICE JONES, as Successor Co-Trustee of the ROBERT M. JONES, JR. TRUST dated December 28, 2007, and ANNELIESE D. JONES, Appellants, v. PATRICK SAYER, as Co-Trustee of the ROBERT M. JONES, JR. TRUST dated December 28, 2007, Appellee.

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT THOMAS CAMPANIELLO, Appellant, v. EDITH EGLIN, JOHN SCHAEFER, HENRY P. HOFFSTOT, III and PHIPPS PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellees. Nos. 4D18-604 and 4D18-1072 [A

FORST, J. This case brings to the fore a number of still unanswered questions regarding the boundaries in juvenile sentencing in the wake of Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). In that case, the Supreme Court of the Unit*547ed States held that a life sentence without parole for a juvenile who did not commit homicide is crue

Forst, J. This case involves claims against a self-described “personalized healthcare program” for both fraud and negligence related to alleged medical malpractice attributable to one of the program’s affiliated physicians. This purported medical malpractice resulted in serious permanent injury to one of the original plaintiffs. We hold that the trial court made several errors in its consideration of motions for directed ver

GROSS, J. This appeal stems from an order of the trial court resentencing appellant Keith Peters to 99 years in prison for the numerous felonies he committed during a crime spree. Because of an anomaly that arose from the application of 1989 statutes after the decision in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing. <

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

990 F.2d 805 Troy WATSON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.SHELL OIL COMPANY, and Brown & Root, U.S.A., Inc.,Defendants-Appellants.Robert ADAMS, Sr., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.SHELL OIL COMPANY, and Brown & Root, U.S.A., Inc.,Defendants-Appellants. No. 91-3449. United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. April 28, 1993.

706 F.Supp. 1135 (1989) E.I. du PONT de NEMOURS & COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. POLAROID GRAPHICS IMAGING, INC., Defendant. Civ. A. No. 88-235 JRR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. February 17, 1989. *1136 Richard L. Sutton and Jack B. Blumenfield of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, Del. of counsel: Joseph

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REBECCA BEACH SMITH, Chief Judge. This matter comes before the court on the Motion to Dismiss [Counterclaim] for *743Failure to State a Claim (“Motion to Dismiss”), filed by Premier Exhibitions, Inc. (“Premier”) and RMS Titanic, Inc. (“RMST”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 17.

Henry E. Hudson, Senior United States District Judge This is an action filed by five Virginia healthcare providers1 who offer abortion *820care or services seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from what they contend are overly burdensome statutes and regulations. Plaintiffs maintain that the present regulatory

POLITZ, Chief Judge: Shell Oil Company arid Brown and Root, U.S.A., ■ Inc., defendants in this mass-tort class action, have permissibly appealed interlocutory orders in this diversity suit. The orders at issue define the class and class issues, designate class representatives, and set a trial plan. Finding neither error nor abuse of discretion, for the reasons assigned we affi

Opinion filed January 16, 2025 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-22-00343-CV __________ REMNANT ASSETS, LLC, Appellant V. PERMICO ROYALTIES, LLC; PARKCREST MINERALS, LLC; AND DAVID B. ROEMER, Appellees On Appeal from the 118th Dist

358 F.Supp.2d 729 (2004) Gary BROWN Plaintiff v. ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Defendant No. CIV.03-2280. United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division. December 10, 2004. *730 *731 R.H. Hixson, Paris, AR, Kent Tester, Clinton, AR, for Plaintiff. <

Opinion filed August 8, 2024 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-22-00343-CV __________ REMNANT ASSETS, LLC, Appellant V. PERMICO ROYALTIES, LLC; PARKCREST MINERALS, LLC; AND DAVID B. ROEMER, Appellees On Appeal from the 118th District Court

RULING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION JOSÉ A. CABRANES, District Judge: The United States seeks a preliminary injunction barring enforcement by the defendant State of Connecticut of its recently enacted statute prohibiting so-called “tandem trailers” on Connecticut highways. In support of its motion, the United States asserts that Connecticut’s statute is preempted by an act of Congress, the Surface Tra

MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which KATZ, D.J., joined. ROGERS, J. (pp. 602-606), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. OPINION MOORE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Stephen B. Himmel (“Himmel”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Ford Motor Company (“Ford”). Ford terminated Himmel’s employment as the Supervisor of Labo