Cases

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2231 INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, a project of the Urban Justice Center, Inc., on behalf of itself and its clients; HIAS, INC., on behalf of itself and its clients; JOHN DOES #1 & 3; JANE DOE #2; MIDDLE EAST STUDIES ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., on behalf of itself and its membe

GREGORY, Chief Judge: I. A. *234*235*236*245

655 S.E.2d 275 (2007) MATSON v. NOBLE INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC et al. No. A07A1216. Court of Appeals of Georgia. November 29, 2007. *276 Hilley & Frieder, Ronald L. Hilley, Tucker and Michael Todd Hammond, for appellant. Hawkins & Parnell, Michael J. Goldman, Atlanta, Wayne Wright Dempsey Jr., Swift, Currie, McGhee &a;

886 S.W.2d 594 (1994) 318 Ark. 524 AMALGAMATED CLOTHING & TEXTILE WORKERS INTL. UNION, Appellant. v. EARLE INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee. No. 94 00218. Supreme Court of Arkansas. November 7, 1994. *595 Rick W. Skelton, Little Rock, for appellant. Jeff Weintraub, Memphis, TN, James W. Moore, Little

OPINION OF THE COURT Peradotto, J. Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Daniel Williams (plaintiff) in an August 2003 shooting in the City of Buffalo. Plaintiff, a high school student, was shot in the abdomen by defendant Cornell Caldwell, who apparently misidentified plaintiff as a rival gang member. The gun used to shoot plaintiff was identified as a Hi-Point 9mm semia

OPINION OF THE COURT Peradotto, J. Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Daniel Williams (plaintiff) in an August 2003 shooting in the City of Buffalo. Plaintiff, a high school student, was shot in the abdomen by defendant Cornell Caldwell, who apparently misidentified plaintiff as a rival gang member. The gun used to shoot plaintiff was identified as a Hi-Point 9mm semia

OPINION OF THE COURT Cohen, J. Introduction The petitioner is a not-for-profit corporation committed to providing women experiencing unplanned pregnancies with *90 alternatives to abortion. To this end, the petitioner operates 12 crisis pregnancy cent

PER CURIAM. Appellants, who are stockholder-plaintiffs in a purported class action against American Export Industries, Inc. (“AEI”), its officers and directors (Levine, et al. v. American Export Industries, Inc., et al., Dkt. No. 72-1822) seek to appeal from an interlocutory order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Constance Baker Motley, Judge. The order consolidated for pretrial pu

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 938 CA 11-02092 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ. DANIEL WILLIAMS AND EDWARD WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, V OPINION AND ORDER BEEMILLER, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS HI-POINT, CHARLES BROWN, MKS SUPPLY, INC., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND THE UNITED STATES, RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

821 F.Supp.2d 1178 (2011) Jeffrey ALTMAN, Plaintiff, v. HO SPORTS COMPANY, INC., dba Hyperlite, and Does 1 to 100, Defendants. No. 1:09-cv-1000 AWI JLT. United States District Court, E.D. California. May 18, 2011. *1180 Illya Hooshang Broomand, Gold River, CA, for Plaintiff. *1181 Rando

[Cite as Stewart v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc., 2026-Ohio-1451.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JAMES STEWART, INDIVIDUALLY : AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, : Plaintiff-Appellee, :

Flannery, J. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant by complaint alleging breach of a lease agreement (count II) and a violation of G. L. c. 93A, §§ 2 and 11 (count VIII).1 In answer to special questions, a Superior Court jury found, among other things, that the plaintiff performed its obligations under the lease agreement, that the defendant repudiated its obligations thereunder, and

473 F.2d 1008 Irwin LEVINE et al., Plaintiffs,v.AMERICAN EXPORT INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants.Martin ZUCKERMAN et al., Plaintiffs,v.AMERICAN EXPORT INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants.Frederick H. BROOKS et al., Plaintiffs,v.Ralph R. WEISER et al., Defendants.Harry LEWIS, Plaintiff,v.John M. WILL et al., Defendants.Irwin LEVINE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.Martin ZUCKERMAN and Phili

ACCEPTED 03-14-00706-CV 4407712 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

ACCEPTED 03-14-00706-CV 4055487 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

53 Cal.2d 455 (1960) 349 P.2d 76 2 Cal. Rptr. 470 PETRI CLEANERS, INC. (a Corporation), Respondent, v. AUTOMOTIVE EMPLOYEES, LAUNDRY DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL NUMBER 88, Appellant. Docket No. L.A. 25143. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. January 26, 1960. *457 Stevenson & Ha

PUBLIC VERSION OPINION AND ORDER Goldberg, Senior Judge: This case resolves challenges to the final antidumping duty determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) for oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”). See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 79 Fed. Reg. 41,973 (Dep’t Comme

Opinion & Order AQUILINO, Senior Judge: At bar are consolidated complaints invoking 19 U.S.C. §§ 1516a(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and (B)(iii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) jurisdiction over the final results of the fifth administrative review (“AR5”) of its anti-dumping-duty order covering certain steel nails from the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) published by t

OPINION Stanceu, Chief Judge: In this consolidated action, 1 several plaintiffs contest a negative “less-than-fair-value” (“LTFV”) determination the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or the “Department”) issued to conclude an antidumping dut

Revis v Schwartz (2020 NY Slip Op 08094) Revis v Schwartz 2020 NY Slip Op 08094 Decided on December 30, 2020 Appellate Division, Second Department Miller, J., J. Published by New Yo