Cases

719 F.Supp.2d 662 (2010) Michael J. KAST v. The GREATER NEW ORLEANS EXPRESSWAY COMMISSION, Robert J. Lambert and Frank Levy. Civil Action No. 09-4575. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. June 15, 2010. As Amended September 13, 2010. *664 Robert T. Garrity, Jr., Robert T. Garrity, Jr., APLC, Richard Edga

781 N.W.2d 655 (2010) 2010 SD 35 James W. FARMER, f/d/b/a J.W. Farmer & Associates, Inc., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND REGULATION, Defendant and Appellant. No. 25095. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Argued on August 25, 2009. Decided April 21, 2010. *657

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. v. United Autoworkers Region 2-B, Local 70, Corr. Officer Corporals' Bargaining Unit, 2020-Ohio-3965.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA CUYAHOGA COUNTY, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 108411

269 Kan. 420 (2000) 7 P.3d 1163 SARAH WOOD, LINDA WOOD, and WARREN WOOD, Appellants/Cross-appellees, v. DERRY GROH and CHOON GROH, Appellees/Cross-appellants. No. 81,826. Supreme Court of Kansas. Opinion filed June 9, 2000. *421 David R. Cooper, of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, L.L.P., of T

674 F.Supp.2d 306 (2009) HOUSE OF FLAVORS, INC., Plaintiff v. TFG-MICHIGAN, L.P., Defendant. Civil No. 09-72-P-H. United States District Court, D. Maine. December 18, 2009. *307 Lee H. Bals, Marcus, Clegg & Mistretta, P.A., Portland, ME, for Plaintiff. Daniel L. Rosenthal, Verrill Dana LLP, Portland, ME, Richard F. Ens

Filed 2/17/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DAVID COLLINS, D077063 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2017- 00028981-CU-PN-CTL) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO et al., Defendants and App

520 N.W.2d 910 (1994) In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Jack Parker CHILTON, Deceased. No. 18488. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Argued April 26, 1994. Decided August 24, 1994. *911 Lloyd C. Richardson of Richardson, Groseclose, Kornmann & Wyly, Aberdeen, for appellants, England, Head, Hardin, Jarrett, Ayres, Heatherly

SUMMARY ORDER This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Loretta A. Preska, Judge) dismissing plaintiffs-appellants’ securities fraud complaint for failure to adequately plead scienter, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”). Plaintiffs are investors who bought stock in a now-bankrupt telecom company called Gl

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EPIC GAMES, INC., No. 25-2935 D.C. No. Plaintiff-ctr-defendant - 4:20-cv-05640- Appellee, YGR v. APPLE INC., OPINION

[Cite as 07/01/2002 Case Announcements, 2002-Ohio-3343.] The Supreme Court of Ohio CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS July 1, 2002 DISCIPLINARY CASES 2001-0412. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cleary. Patricia A. Cleary is reinstated to the practice of law. MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS 2002-0902. Butcher v. Lewis. Stark App. No. 2001CA00219, 2002-Ohi

450 S.W.2d 411 (1970) Sarah E. O'BYRNE et al., Appellants, v. OAK PARK TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, OAK PARK, ILLINOIS, Guardian of the Estate of Ellen V. Loeffler, Appellee. No. 7089. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Beaumont. January 15, 1970. Rehearing Denied January 29, 1970. *413 Orgain, Bell & Tucker, Beau

On March 2, 1945, Albert H. Joslin entered into a contract to sell to S.E. Satchwell, et al., certain real and personal property for $5,600. A cash payment of $1,500 was made, and the balance, together with interest, was to be paid at the rate of $35 per month. These monthly payments were made for a time, same being paid to the Bank of Willits and by the latter to Joslin. On September 19, 1946, the purchasers having made arrangements with the bank to borrow a sufficient amount

KINCAID, J. pro tern.,*—I dissent. I cannot agree that we are compelled to conclude that Mrs. Kuttler intended the document in question to operate as her will over the contrary finding of the trial court. Appellants assume and the majority opinion seems to hold *347that because n

This action was begun by the filing of the complaint of the plaintiff asking that the defendants be required to interplead and litigate among themselves their several adverse and conflicting claims to the sum of three thousand five hundred dollars in possession of the plaintiff and which it offered to pay into court for the party found to be entitled thereto. Such an action is authorized by section 386 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [1] The objection

Napton, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. This was an action of- ejectment, in which the value of the titles confessedly depended on two points; one involving the validity of certain acts of- the legislature of Missouri, and the second — assuming their invalidity — whether there were in evidence facts sufficient to show a ratification of the supposed invalid acts, after the plaintiff became of age. The

Green, J udge, announced the opinion of the Court: The first question presented by the record is : Had the court below jurisdiction to render any decree on this rule against Rezin Cain, on March 20, 1880? The record shows, that Sarah A. Crislip, the plaintiff in this cause, had died prior to March 18, 1880, for on that day her death was suggested, as appears from an order made in the proceedings on this rule up