Cases

994 So.2d 200 (2008) James Dwight VICKERS, Sr., Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee. No. 2006-KA-01711-COA. Court of Appeals of Mississippi. April 8, 2008. Rehearing Denied July 22, 2008. Certiorari Denied November 6, 2008. *205 James Lappan, Andre De Gruy, Jackson, Leslie S. Lee, attorne

OPINION LASTER, Vice Chancellor. In November 2010, El Paso Corporation (“El Paso Parent”) sold member interests in three limited liability companies to El Paso Pipeline Partners,- L.P. (the “Partnership” or “El Paso MLP”). At the time of the sale, El Paso Parent controlled El Paso MLP through its- ownership of El Paso Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C., the sole g

674 F.Supp. 566 (1987) Thomas STUBBLEFIELD, Plaintiff, v. VICKERS TOWING COMPANY, Tower Rock Stone Co., and United States of America, Defendants. No. GC86-352-S-O. United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division. December 2, 1987. *567 Lawrence D. Wade, Campbell, Delong, Hagwood, Wade & Stuart, Greenville,

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 13, 2016. ________________ No. 3D14-575 Lower Tribunal No. 12-49315 ________________ Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Indenture Trustee for American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2006-2, Appellant,

352 F.Supp. 369 (1972) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Leon JONES et al., Defendants. Crim. A. No. 1969. United States District Court, S. D. Georgia, Dublin Division. December 1, 1972. *370 *371 Edmund A. Booth, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Augusta, Ga., for plaintiff. John R. Thomps

ACCEPTED 03-15-00348-CV 6616789 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

955 F.2d 382 1993 A.M.C. 1377 Clifton FAVORITE, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.MARINE PERSONNEL AND PROVISIONING, INC., Individually, andas Agent for Marine Transport Management Company,Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.Clifton FAVORITE, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.MARINE PERSONNEL AND PROVISIONING, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 90-3833, 91-3170.

JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge. This appeal from a judgment on a general verdict for the defendant presents the narrow question whether the Court erred in not giving an explanatory instruction on concurrent negligence of the defendant’s servant and the co-employee of the plaintiff. The case is the now familiar one in which the plaintif

HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge. In this diversity action, the jury awarded plaintiffs Keith Collins and K-B Trucking Co. (“K-B”) actual and punitive damages on their fraudulent misrepresentation claims against defendants Riss International Corp. (“Riss”) and World Leasing, Inc. (“World Leasing”). Defendants argue on appeal that (1) Collins was not a proper plaintiff; (2) certain document

763 F.2d 826 Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,050, 3 Fed.R.Serv.3d 373 METLYN REALTY CORPORATION and Kapflor Corporation,Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.ESMARK, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee.MORGAN GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.ESMARK, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Nos. 84-1749, 84-1750. United States Court o

SATER, District Judge. The constitutionality of the so-called “blue-sky” law of Ohio (sections 6373-1 to 6373-24, General Code, as amended by 103 Ohio L. pp. 743-753, 104 Ohio L. pp. 110-119, 105-106 Ohio L. pp. 363-364) is assailed in each of the above-mentioned *236cases, which, for convenience, axe considered together. Statutes of a kindred character' have in learned

62 F.3d 1227 68 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 986,66 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,665,95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6314,95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,772Donald E. MESSICK, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.HORIZON INDUSTRIES INC., a Georgia corporation; MohawkCarpet Corporation, a Delaware Corporation,Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-35025. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.

Bland, Chancellor. In this case the defendants, Thomas Magill, and Thomas N. Harding, having filed their answers, and entered on the docket notice of a motion at the next term to dissolve the injunction issued in the said case, it is ordered, that the said motion stand for hearing at the next term, provided a copy of this order be served on the complainant or her solicitor before the twentieth day of June

MEMORANDUM OPINION GOLDBERG, District Judge. Presently before me is the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification filed in this consolidated antitrust lawsuit known as the In re Modafinil Litigation.1 The prospective class of Direct Purchasers include drug wholesalers that purchased the brand-name drug, Provigil, direc

ORDER AND REASONS JANETRICHE MILAZZO, District Judge. Before the Court are cross Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Kinder Morgan Bulk Terminals, Inc., Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC, and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP (collectively “GATX”), Defendant Valero Refining Texas, LP (“Valero”), and Plaintiff. For the following reasons, GATX’s Motion (R. Doc. 216) is GRANTED, an

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

PER CURIAM: In this case, which is not a class action, the plaintiffs, nearly 100 individuals, appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as well as the court’s denial of their subsequent Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. The complaint, which sought damages for personal injury and wrongful death resulting from exposure to asbestos, alleged that the court had di

724 F.Supp.2d 1208 (2010) Antonio LOVE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MOBILE, et al., Defendants. No. CA 10-0166-CG-C. United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division. July 8, 2010. Thomas Earl James, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff. Alicia Marie Jacob, Thomas O. Gaillard, III, Galloway, Wettermark, Everest, Rutens & Gaillard, LLP, James B. Rossler,</

ORDER JAMES M. ROSENBAUM, Chief Judge. Defendants move for dismissal of plaintiffs’ fraud claims stating failure to plead fraud with the required particularity, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motions are granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs are *671granted leave to amend their individual p

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-15-00390-CV COMPASS BANK APPELLANT V. JERRY DURANT APPELLEE ---------- FROM THE 43RD DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNT