Cases

14‐2027 In re 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ______________ August Term 2015 (Argued: November 18, 2015 Decided: July 20, 2016)

14‐1963(L) Kirschenbaum, et al. v. 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ______________ August Term 2015 (Argued: November 18, 2015 Decided: July 20, 2016)

ACCEPTED 15-25-00012-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 3:13 PM No. 15-25-00012-CV

264 F.3d 344 (3rd Cir. 2001) IN RE: ORTHOPEDIC BONE SCREW PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 1014)J.T. Bradley and Kathy W. Bradley, Appellants in No. 00-3899Regina M. Luellen and Eurston Luellen, Sr., Appellants in No. 00-3900Randal Jon Uribe, Appellant in No. 00-3901Mitchell H. Walker and Kim S. Walker, Appellants in No. 00-3902Jose Morfin, Appellant in No. 00-3903Mary K. Mullen Schmelter and Kurt Allen Schmelter, Appel

ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1103 KENNETH ACKERMAN; JAMES ACKERMAN; APRIL ACKERMAN; MARY ACKERMAN, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Thomas Ackerman; CHARLES V. ADAMS; CHRISTIANNE M. ADAMS; JOHN ALEXIS; CHARLES J. ARKINS; LULA M. ARKINS; THOMAS J. ARNO; AMY H. ARNO, Both individually and as next friends of A.A. and E.A.; R

NOTICE: The attorneys on the attached list have the opportunity to comply with outstanding requirements prior to the effective date of the Supreme Court Order and not be administratively suspended. The current license status of a Pennsylvania attorney can be found on the Disciplinary Board’s website. https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-the- public/find-attorney Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Attorneys Certified for Administrative Suspensi

Cite as 2015 Ark. 200 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS IN RE SUSPENSIONS OF Opinion Delivered May 7, 2015 ATTORNEYS WHO FAILED TO PAY ANNUAL ATTORNEY-LICENSE FEE PER CURIAM On May 14, 2014, we held unconstitutional former Rule VII(C) of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar to the extent the former rule provided for the suspension of attorneys

[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

Per Curiam. *1021The moving papers indicate that despite written notices sent to them by the Office of Court Administration at their last known address, respondents have failed to register and pay the required fee. Judiciary Law § 468-a (5) provides that noncompliance with the statute and rules regarding attorney registration “shall constitute conduc

Per Curiam. *1021The moving papers indicate that despite written notices sent to them by the Office of Court Administration at their last known address, respondents have failed to register and pay the required fee. Judiciary Law § 468-a (5) provides that noncompliance with the statute and rules regarding attorney registration “shall constitute conduc

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (2019 NY Slip Op 03883) Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. 2019 NY Slip Op 03883 Decided on May 16, 2019 Appellate Division, Third Department

WESLEY, Circuit Judge: On this appeal, we consider challenges to an award of summary judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest, /.), which forfeited to the United States various claimants’ interests in multiple properties, including a 36-story office building located at 650 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan (“the Building”), real properties in Maryland, Texas, California, Virgini

DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment: I admire the majority’s deft circumnavigation of serious errors of fact and law in pursuit of an ultimately defensible result. I write separately because the district court’s errors were so many and of such significance that I cannot share the majority’s confidence that they did not contribute to that result. More importantly, I believe that leaving those e

WESLEY, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs-Appellees (“Plaintiffs”) are direct or indirect victims of terrorist acts linked to the Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”), against which they hold unsatisfied money judgments. Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to enforce these judgments against Defendants-Appellants Alavi Foundation and 650 Fifth Avenue Company (together, “Defendants”),1 pursuant to the Forei

OPINION OF THE COURT REAVLEY, Circuit Judge. This Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) claim against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for granting clearance to market certain types of pedicle screw fixation devices (referred to generally as bone screws) was dismissed by the District Court pursuant to the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.1 Appellants contend here that