Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
8 opinions for “Virginia v. Bulgartabac Holding”
360 F.Supp.2d 791 (2005) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ex rel. Jerry W. KILGORE, Attorney General, Plaintiff, v. BULGARTABAC HOLDING GROUP, Defendant. No. CIV.A. 304CV842. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. March 3, 2005. *792 Francis S. Ferguson, Esquire, Anne Marie Cushmac, Esquire, Office of the Attorn
OPINION {¶ 1} Appellant, Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann ("the state"), filed this appeal seeking reversal of a judgment by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting the motion to dismiss of appellee, Bulgartabac Holding Group ("Bulgartabac" or *Page 2 "appellee"), for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court's decision.
Davis v. Otten and Meemic Insurancepublic domain
#29691-r-JMK 2022 S.D. 39 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA **** CATHERINE DAVIS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RICHARD OTTEN, Defendant, and MEEMIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. **** APPEAL FROM THE
North Carolina ex rel. North Carolina Department of Administration v. Alcoa Power Generating, Inc.public domain
ORDER TERRENCE W. BOYLE, District Judge. This cause comes before the Court on the State’s motion to remand. A hearing was held on this matter before the undersigned on November 14, 2013, at Raleigh, North Carolina. For the reasons discussed below, the State’s motion is denied. BACKGROUND The State filed this declaratory judgment action in Wake
State v. Grand River Enterprises, Inc.public domain
757 N.W.2d 305 (2008) 2008 SD 98 STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GRAND RIVER ENTERPRISES, INC., an alien Corporation, Defendant and Appellee. State of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Grand River Enterprises, Inc., a/k/a Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd., an alien Corporation, Defendant and Appellee (Two Cases). No. 24804. Supreme
California v. Atlantic Richfield Co.public domain
EDWARD R. KORMAN, District Judge. This interlocutory appeal arises from lawsuits originally filed by the States of California and New Hampshire in their respective state courts against corporations that manufactured, refined, marketed, or distributed gasoline containing methyl tertiary butyl ether (“MTBE”). Refiners have added MTBE to some gasoline since the late 1970s in order to enhance its octane content. The use of MTBE s
California v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Products Liability Litigation)public domain
EDWARD R. KORMAN, District Judge. This interlocutory appeal arises from lawsuits originally filed by the States of California and New Hampshire in their respective state courts against corporations that manufactured, refined, marketed, or distributed gasoline containing methyl tertiary butyl ether (“MTBE”). Refiners have added MTBE to some gasoline since the late 1970s in order
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 3, 2010 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE, by and through Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter for the State of Tennessee v. NV SUMATRA TOBACCO TRADING COMPANY Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 03-1613(II) Carol L. McCoy, Chancello