Cases

580 F.3d 1340 (2009) AMGEN INC., Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD, Roche Diagnostics GMBH, and Hoffmann-LA Roche Inc., Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 2009-1020, 2009-1096. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. September 15, 2009. *1345 Lloyd R. Day, Jr., Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder LLP, of C

PER CURIAM. Petitioner Ronald Barrow, serving a life sentence for murder in an Illinois correctional facility, appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Barrow alleges, inter alia, that since his trial counsel failed to present any evidence in defense and committed several other errors during state proceedings,

ACCEPTED 01-12-00578-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS

789 F.Supp.2d 546 (2011) Stephen G. EPPLEY, Plaintiff, v. PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Civil Action No. 10-3942. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. April 27, 2011. *548 Joseph G. Muzic, Nikolaus & Hohenadel, Lancaster, PA, for Plaintiff. Elizabeth A. Venditta, White & Will

702 F.Supp.2d 266 (2010) SCHERING-PLOUGH HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. NEUTROGENA CORPORATION, Defendant. Civ. No. 09-268-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. April 8, 2010. *268 Sheldon K. Rennie, Esquire of Fox Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, DE, of Counsel Ronald J. Shaffer, Esquire, Scott L. Vernick, Esquire

269 B.R. 871 (2001) In re OREAD, INC., Debtor. No. 01-40326. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas. November 28, 2001. *872 Robert L. Baer, Cosgrove Webb & Oman, Anne L. Baker, Commerce Bank Building, Tom R. Barnes, II, Charles R. Hay, Patricia A. Reeder, Woner Glenn Reeder, Girard & Riordan, Wesley F. Smith, Thomas A. Valent

176 F.Supp.2d 820 (2001) UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Hafis HAQQ, Petitioner, v. Lamark CARTER, Respondent. No. 98 C 5827. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. December 10, 2001. *821 *822 Hafis Haqq, Joliet, IL, pro se. Jay Paul Hoffmann, Chief of Criminal

Justice GREEN delivered the Opinion of the Court. Under the learned intermediary doctrine, the manufacturer of a pharmaceutical product satisfies its duty to warn the end user of its product’s potential risks by providing an adequate warning to a “learned intermediary,” who then assumes the duty to pass on the necessary warnings to the end user. See, e.g., Gravis v. Parke-Davis & Co., 502 S.W.2d

18 S.W.3d 53 (2000) CITY OF EXCELSIOR SPRINGS and Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of Excelsior Springs, Respondents, v. ELMS REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Elms Inn Partners, Elms Hotel Associates Limited Partnership, The Elms of Excelsior Springs, Inc., Robert L. and Carol S. Bisbee, Elms Timesharing Intervals, Inc., Elms Hotel Operating Company, James A. Ash, Laramie Insurance Company, the Industrial Development Authority of the City of

544 U.S. 709 (2005) CUTTER ET AL. v. WILKINSON, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, et al. No. 03-9877. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 21, 2005. Decided May 31, 2005. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. *710 *7

ACCEPTED 01-15-00390-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/12/2015 9:25:40 PM

664 F.Supp.2d 752 (2009) In re FORD MOTOR CO. SPEED COTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGTION. MDL No. 1718. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. September 29, 2009. Order on Clarification and Reconsideration January 4, 2010. *754 Michael A. Caddell, Caddell & Chapman, Houston

SPINDEN, Judge. Nine members of a class of more than 850 persons who bought a right to stay at the Elms Hotel in Excelsior Springs for one to two weeks a year appeal the circuit court’s decision to deny their motion to set aside its judgment in a condemnation action. The appellants contend that the judgment was void because only nine members of their class received individual notice of the proceedings and because those indiv

ACCEPTED 13-14-00725-cv THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 4/2/2015 10

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (2022 NY Slip Op 05127) Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a 2022 NY Slip Op 05127 Decided on September 1, 2022 Appellate Division, Third Department Published

17-2208, 18-359 Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2018 (Argued: February 13, 2019 Decided: April 1, 2020) Nos. 17-2208-cv, 18-359-cv MAXCIMO SCOTT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, JAY FRANCIS ENSOR, CHRISTIN

GRABER, Circuit Judge: This appeal arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Plaintiffs, who are managers and registered nurses employed by defendant County of Santa Clara, filed actions seeking overtime pay under the FLSA. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that it could correct its failures to comply with the relevant administrative rules through the regulatory “window of

700 F.Supp.2d 378 (2010) HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, Plaintiff, v. WACHOVIA BANK N.A. et al., Defendants. In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation This Document Relates to: All Actions. Civil No. 08 2516. MDL No. 08 1950. United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 25, 2010. Opinion Denying Reconsideration April 9, 2010.

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

11 F.Supp.2d 1217 (1998) In re BREAST IMPLANT LITIGATION. No. 96-S-9260. United States District Court, D. Colorado. June 3, 1998. *1218 *1219 *1220 Patricia Jo Stone, Stone & Associates, P.C., Denver, CO, for plaintiffs. Mary A. Wells, Wells, Anderson &a;