Cases

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs August 19, 2015 WENDY A. MCCULLEY v. ROBERT MCCULLEY Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. 153644R Robert L. Childers, Judge ________________________________ No. W2014-02178-COA-R3-CV – Filed October 2, 2015 ______________

OPINION FISHER, Circuit Judge: Since 1975, Nevada has given its voters the ability to register their disapproval of all the named candidates running for a particular office in statewide and presidential elections by voting for “None of these *1131 candidates,” commonly r

656 S.E.2d 485 (2007) Clinton SAN FRANCISCO and Jessie San Francisco, his wife, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants v. WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant Below, Appellee. No. 33284. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Submitted September 18, 2007. Decided November 21, 2007. Concurring Opinion of Chief Justice Davis November 26, 2007.

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of California ROB BONTA Attorney General _______________ : OPINION : No. 22-101 : of :

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of California ROB BONTA Attorney General _______________ : OPINION : No. 22-101 : of :

576 F.Supp. 816 (1983) WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. BIG BITE, INC., Defendant. No. C-2-83-1184. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, E.D. August 18, 1983. *817 John W. Zeiger, Columbus, Ohio, for plaintiff. John J. Chester, Paul G. Lukeman, Columbus, Ohio, for defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORD

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-05-00063-CV Brenda C. Kirby, Appellant

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-05-00063-CV Brenda C. Kirby, Appellant v. William Tjarks, Gayle Rankin and June Wendy Johnson, individually, as Heirs of the Estate of June Bruckmiller, Deceased, and as Beneficiaries of the Bruckmiller Trust, Appellees FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF L

402 F.3d 598 David BEARD; Theo Downs, as next friend of Peggy Shumway; Peggy Shumway; Edward Gariepy, as next friend of Alyssa Chappa; Alyssa Chappa; Tamara Bleau, as next friend of Robert Cook; Robert Cook; Ronald Ford, Sr., as next friend of Ronald Ford, Jr.; Ronald Ford, Jr.; Nancy Huskinson, as next friend of Stacy Huskinson; Stacy Huskinson, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.WHITMORE LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant,Charmaine Balsillie; Brian

MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING: (1) CHRIS ALLEN LOUVI-ERE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REFILE COMPLAINT FOR DETERMINATION OF DISCHARGE-ABILITY AND OBJECTION TO DEBTORSH DISCHARGE PURSUANT TO SECTION[S] 523 AND 727: AND (2) THE DEBTORS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE THE ADVERSARY COMPLAINT Jeff Bohm, United States Bankruptcy Judge I. Introduction The practice of bankruptcy is very de

FEUER, J. *556Plaintiffs Wendy Marquez and Jasmine Smith appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer filed by the City of Long Beach (City) to plaintiffs' class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged causes of action for violations of the Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Com

516 F.Supp.2d 1021 (2007) Bethany V. BOWEN, Plaintiff, v. Honorable Jeffre CHEUVRONT, in his official capacity as Justice of the District Court for the State of Nebraska, Defendant. No. 4:07CV3221. United States District Court, D. Nebraska. September 25, 2007. *1022 Sue Ellen T. Wall, Wall Law Office, Lincoln, NE, Jennifer A. Hou

MULLINS, Judge. Alex Olson appeals an order granting summary judgment in favor of Durant Community School District (Durant) on his claims of disability discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. He contends genuine issues of material fact exist as to each of his claims. I. Background Facts

¶1 Dale Rostrom appeals a trial court decision that allowed Kathryn Rostrom to move their minor children from the United States to Australia. Dale1 challenges a number of the court’s findings of fact. He also claims that the court did not order adequate safeguards for enforcement of the parenting plan after the children moved. The trial court considered the factors required by the relocation statute, and substantial evidence s

Rapoza, C.J. The question presented in this appeal is whether a claim under the Massachusetts Wage Act, G. L. c. 149, §§ 148 et seq. (Wage Act), is subject to a mandatory arbitration provi*272sion in the parties’ individually negotiated employment agreement. We conclude that it is and reverse the order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration.</

ORDER CECILIA M. ALTONAGA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiff, Cegeste' Barthelus’s (“Barthe-lus[’s]”) Renewed Motion for New Trial .... (“Renewed Motion”) [ECF No. 242], filed August 11,2015. On August 21, 2015, Defendant, G4S Government Solutions, Inc. (“G4S” or “WSI”)1'filed an Opposition ... (“Renewed Response”) [ECF No

*106 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CASPER, United States District Judge I. Introduction Plaintiff Elizabeth Bowen (“Bowen”) brings common law claims and claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Equal Pay Act against Defendant eLanes New Hampshire Holdings, LLC (“eL

632 F.3d 612 (2011) Robert Green FAIRBANK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert L. AYERS, Jr., Warden for California State Prison at San Quentin, Respondent-Appellee. No. 08-99018. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted December 10, 2010. Filed February 15, 2011. *614 Mark Raymond Drozdows

458 F.Supp.2d 216 (2006) Anthony ZUPPO, Petitioner, v. Thomas CARROLL, Warden, and Carl C. Danberg, Attorney General of the State of Delaware, Respondents. No. CIV. 05-504-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. October 23, 2006. *218 Anthony Zuppo, pro se. Elizabeth R. McFarlan, Deputy Attorney General, Department

ORDER RICHARD MARK GERGEL, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R & R”), Dkt. No. 32, recommending that this Court deny Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 24) and grant Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 21). For the reason stated below, the Court ADOPTS the R & R, DENIES the motion to strike and GRANTS the motion to r