Cases

ACCEPTED 03-15-00085-CV 5176028 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

ORDER OF COURT The various groups of plaintiffs have collectively filed three petitions for panel rehearing and two for rehearing en banc, raising various objections to the panel opinion. This order deals primarily with the petitions for panel rehearing. None of them has merit. End-Payor Class’s Petition The End-Payor Class, seeking only panel rehearing, argues that we must remand the case with

54 S.W.3d 1 (2001) Joe R. WILKINSON, et al., Appellants, v. DALLAS/FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BOARD, The City of Dallas, and The City of Fort Worth, Appellees. No. 05-99-01028-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. January 17, 2001. *5 Walter W. Leonard, Fort Worth, for appellants. Joseph G. Werner, Haynes & Boon

Affirm in part; Reverse and Render in part; Remand and Opinion Filed August 13, 2013 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas __________________________________ NO. 05-12-00963-CV CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, Appellant V. ANTHONY ARREDONDO, CHARLES S. SWANER, JAM

Affirm in part; Reverse and Render in part; Remand and Opinion Filed August 13, 2013 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas __________________________________ NO. 05-12-00963-CV CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, Appellant V. ANTHONY ARREDONDO, CHARLES S. SWANER, JAM

762 F.Supp.2d 631 (2010) In re WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER SITE LITIGATION. In re Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation. In re Combined World Trade Center and Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation. Nos. 21 MC 100(AKH), 21 MC 102, 21 MC 103. United States District Court, S.D. New York. December 30, 2010. *632 Marion Sandra M

ACCEPTED 03-14-00510-CV 4243321 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVENESS OF SETTLEMENT ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, District Judge: I conducted a hearing on December 22, 2010, to consider and regulate two issues necessary to be resolved to consummate the Affirmation of Final Settlement as provided by § XXII of the Settlement Process Agreement, As Amended (“SPA”): (1) the report by the Special Counsel

Opinion by JUDGE DUNN ¶ 1 Unhappy that the roads in their subdivision have fallen into disrepair, property owners in unincorporated Boulder County (collectively, the Owners) filed an action to force the Boulder County Board of County Commissioners (the County) to maintain their subdivision- roads.- We conclude the Owners do not have standing to bring their clai

PER CURIAM: Rawl Sales and Processing Company and Massey Energy Company (Defendants) appeal from the district court’s order granting the Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint by dismissing the sole federal claim (Count 12) and remanding the remaining state law claims to West Virginia state court. The Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2000).

215 F.Supp.2d 795 (2002) In re NORPLANT CONTRACEPTIVE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. MDL No. 1038. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division. August 14, 2002. *796 *797 Christopher Matthew Parks, Parker & Parks, Port Arthur, TX, for Plaintiffs. F. Lane Heard III, Williams

O’Brien, S. This trial of the issue of the status of a contestant in the pending probate proceeding began on October 19, 1931, and with the exception of a recess of one day in November, and of three and a half days in Christmas week occasioned by the death of decedent’s sister, continued without interruption until Monday, January 11, 1932, at two p. m.; 149 witnesses were called in the trial, 834 exhibits were marked in evidence a