Cases

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HELEN DOE, parent and next friend No. 23-16026 of Jane Doe; JAMES DOE, parent and next friend of Jane Doe; KATE ROE, D.C. No. 4:23-cv- parent and next friend of Megan Roe; 00185-JGZ ROBERT ROE, parent and next friend of Megan Roe, OPINION Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THOMAS C. HORNE, in his official capacity as State Superinten

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2022 ME 60 Docket: Oxf-22-35 Submitted On Briefs: September 21, 2022 Decided: December 13, 2022 Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, JABAR, HORTON, CONNORS, and LAWRENCE, JJ. PAT DOE v. THOMAS HEWSON MEAD, J. [¶1] Pat

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2023 ME 28 Docket: Kno-22-276 Submitted On Briefs: January 25, 2023 Decided: May 9, 2023 Panel: MEAD, JABAR, HORTON, CONNORS, and LAWRENCE, JJ. PAT DOE v. THOMAS LINDAHL MEAD, J. [¶1] Thomas Lindahl appeals from a

In re Thomas, James; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 88CA-2139; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “B”, No. 81-14794. Prior report: La.App., 542 So.2d 740. Denied. DIXON, C.J., and CALOGERO, J., would grant the writ.

542 So.2d 740 (1989) James THOMAS v. John DOE, Rent-A-Car Cheap Co., and XYZ Insurance Company. No. 88-CA-2139. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. April 13, 1989. Writ Denied June 2, 1989. Paula Perrone, Metairie, for plaintiff/appellant. John A. Kopfinger, Jr., Henry Leon Sarpy, Porteous, Hainkel, Johnson & Sarpy, New Orleans,

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1594 ___________________________ John Doe lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. University of St. Thomas lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant -

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS JOHN R. TUNHEIM, Chief Judge, United States District Court This case arises from alleged sexual misconduct that occurred on Defendant University of St. Thomas’s (“UST”) campus in December 2015. Even though the Ramsey County Attorney decided not to prosecute Plaintiff John Doe, UST initiated disciplinary proceeding and suspended Doe. Doe filed

JOHN R. TUNHEIM, Chief Judge Plaintiff John Doe ("Doe") brought this action against the University of St. Thomas ("UST"), a private university, stemming from UST's investigation of a sexual misconduct complaint made against him. Doe originally brought six causes of action; however, the Court dismissed five of them, and the only remaining cause of action is one based on negligence. UST now moves for summary judgment on the negligence

OPINION AND ORDER ¶1 Bill Gene Thomas is currently incarcerated in Montana State Prison serving a sentence imposed in 1993 for deliberate homicide. On September 23,2011, Thomas filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Third Judicial District Court, Powell County, raising various claims. The District Court issued an order on October 1

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

648 F.3d 584 (2011) Jane DOE, for herself, and by and through her Parent and natural guardian, Pauline THOMAS; John Doe, for himself, and by and through *585 Nickole Thomas, his Parent and natural guardian; Pauline Thomas, for herself; Nickole Thomas, for herself, Appellants, v. Dr. Al TSAI, M.D., in his individual capacity; Sherrie Murphy, R.N., in her individual capacity; Sgt. Chris Pickhardt, in his individ

BECKERING, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). With the advent of the Internet and the accompanying easy, rapid, and global exchange of information and opinions, new legal issues have come to the forefront. This case presents one of those new legal issues and involves a matter of first impression in Michigan. How do we balance a defendant’s First Amendment right to speak anony

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

435 F.3d 492 Buck DOE, Plaintiff-Appellee, andRobert Doe; Tays Doe; Otis Doe; Thomas Doe; Joe Doe; Charles Doe; Dick Doe, Plaintiffs,v.Elaine L. CHAO, Secretary of Labor, Defendant-Appellant. No. 05-1068. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued: October 25, 2005. Decided: January 24, 2006.

[Cite as Trotwood v. Thomas, 2025-Ohio-3007.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY CITY OF TROTWOOD OHIO : : C.A. No. 30428 Appellees : : Trial Court Case No. 2024 CV 04651

" 'The manifest error standard of review also applies to mixed questions of law and fact.' " Gordon v. Gordon , 16-0008, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/8/16), 195 So.d 687, 689 (quoting A.S. v. D.S. , 14-1098, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/8/15), 165 So.3d 247, 254 ). The de novo standard of review

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 6D23-2449 Lower Tribunal No. 2021-CA-002765-0001-XX _____________________________ JOHN DOE, Appellant, v. THOMAS S. MONAGHAN, an individual, and AVE MARIA SCHOOL OF

[Cite as State v. Thomas, 2024-Ohio-5662.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 23AP-129 (C.P.C. No. 21CR-4199) v. : (REGULAR CALE

HONORABLE BETH LABSON FREEMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *904Having considered Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to Grant Remote Electronic Access to the Court's Order (1) Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; and (2) Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby ORDERS:</