Cases

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIE WILLIAMS; LADON Nos. 24-933 CLINE; PAUL CONTRERAS, on 24-2970 behalf of themselves and all others D.C. No. similarly situated, 8:20-cv-01701- PSG-JDE Plaintiff

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INCORPORATED, │ P

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD John A. Earheart, Jr. ) Docket No. 2019-06-1297 ) v. ) State File No. 52124-2018 ) Central Transport, Inc., et al. ) ) ) A

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 24a0071p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INCORPORATED, │

Breach of Contract; Partial Motion to Dismiss; Partial Motion for Summary Judgment; Contract Formation; Offer and Acceptance; Authority to Contract on Behalf of the United States; Contracts Disputes Act; Demand of Sum Certain OPINION FIRESTONE, Judge. Plaintiff JEM Transport, Inc. (“JEM”) brings this breach of contract case again

PER CURIAM. Franklyn Jenkins appeals from a judgment of the Houston Circuit Court (“the trial court”) granting a summary-judgment motion filed by American Transport, Inc. (“ATI”), in Jenkins’s action seeking benefits under the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act (“the Act”), § 25-5-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975. We reverse and remand. *999In April 2011,

OPINION & ORDER JAMES L. GRAHAM, United States District Judge A .truck, filled with millions of dollars’ worth of pharmaceuticals was stolen. The trucking company — Southern Refrigerated Transport, Inc. (“SRT”) — is at fault. The shipper — Sandoz, Inc. (“Sandoz") — claims that the pharmaceuticals were worth $8.6 million. A federal statute — the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706 et seq

Blanket Purchase Agreements; Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-13 (2006), as amended and codified at 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109; Federal Acquisition Regulations, 48 C.F.R. § 2.101 (definition of contracts); 48 C.F.R. § 2.201 (contract clause); 48 C.F.R. § 13.004 (effect of quotations); 48 C.F.R. § 13.303 (blanket purchase agreements); 48 C.F.R. § 52.212-4(m) (termination for convenience); Mo

Blanket Purchase Agreements; Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-13 (2006), as amended and codified at 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109; Federal Acquisition Regulations, 48 C.F.R. § 2.101 (definition of contracts); 48 C.F.R. § 2.201 (contract clause); 48 C.F.R. § 13.004 (effect of quotations); 48 C.F.R. § 13.303 (blanket purchase agreements); 48 C.F.R. § 52.212-4 (terminations for convenience); Motio

Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 24-0924 ══════════ MV Transportation, Inc., Petitioner, v. GDS Transport, LLC, Respondent ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the

Filed 2/28/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR RACHEL MONIZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, A168481, A168872 v. (San Mateo County ADECCO USA, INC., Super. Ct. No. 17-CIV- 01736) Defendant and Respondent

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RICHARD H. KYLE, District Judge. INTRODUCTION This simple personal-injury action arises out of a 2010 motor-vehicle accident on a highway in Texas. Plaintiff Charles Nathan Byrd has sued Defendant J Rayl Transport, Inc. (“J Rayl”), the owner of the vehicle that struck his truck, for injuries he sustained in that accident. Presently before the Court is J Ray

OPINION AND ORDER KRISTINE G. BAKER, District Judge. Plaintiff Patricia Cook brings this action against defendant Triple Transport, Inc. (“Triple Transport”) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Triple Transport moves for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 11). Ms. Cook has responded (Dkt. No. 17), and Triple Transport has replied (Dkt. No. 21)

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 18-0712 Filed April 3, 2019 MIKE MARION NIDAY, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. ROEHL TRANSPORT, INC., Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott, Judge. An injured worker appeals the district court order finding the Iowa Workers’ Compen

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued December 14, 2023 Decided April 2, 2024 No. 23-1032 HIKVISION USA, INC., PETITIONER v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC., INTERVENOR Consolidated w

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2564-21 IN THE MATTER OF ROUTE 66, JUMPING BROOK APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION ROAD TO BOWNE ROAD/ October 11, 2023 WAYSIDE ROAD, MODIFICATION OF ACCE

RENDERED: NOVEMBER 8, 2024; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2023-CA-0959-MR LAURA PANTOJA APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JULIE KAELIN, JUDGE ACTION NO. 22-CI-005951 ATOMIC TRANSPORT, LLC AND JUSTIN CYPHERT

OPINION AND ORDER JAMES L. GRAHAM, District Judge. Pending before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment *738(docs. 93 and 97). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 93) as to Count IV of the Complaint, DISMISSES Count III of the Complaint, and DENIES the Defen

ORDER & OPINION JOE BILLY McDADE, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion in Limine (Doc. 52) and Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 53). Plaintiff filed Responses in opposition to both Motions (Docs. 55 & 56).1 For the reasons stated below, both Motions are denied in part and granted in part. B

HADLOCK, J. Petitioner AGAT Transport, Inc. (AGAT) seeks review of a final order of an administrative law judge (ALJ) that affirmed a tax assessment issued by the Employment Department (the department). In the challenged order, the ALJ determined that certain truck drivers whom AGAT paid to transport cargo were AGAT’s employees, rejecting AGAT’s contention that the drivers were independent contractors. Based on that determinat