Cases

OPINION TARNOW, Senior District Judge. Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The district court, following a hearing, found that the “filed-rate doctrine” denied the court federal question subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court also found that the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (“PUCO”) had exclusive

606 F.Supp.2d 783 (2009) Anthony WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DUKE ENERGY INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. C1-08-046. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. March 31, 2009. *784 Christopher D. Stock, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesly, Columbus, OH, George M. Reul, Jr., Kelly Mulloy My

DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 23, 2023 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-01249-CV DUKE MICHAEL WILLIAMS III, Appellant V. SHATAVIA DESHUNE STILL, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Collin County, Texas

Per curiam. Williams files this pro se appeal from a refusal by the superior court to hold a hearing on his petition for writ of mandamus. Held: Appeal dismissed. 1. It does not appear from the record that the superior court has altogether refused to hear the appellant’s mandamus petition. What does appear is that the court has refused to set the matter down for a hearing as expeditiously as the

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

BRITT, Judge. By their first assignment of error, plaintiffs contend the court erred in excluding certain testimony of their witness E. W. Brown. The record reveals: Q. by Mr. McDaniel: Do you know whether those towers could have been put there without grading the soil itself?. Mr. Coley: Objection. Court: Sustained.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), dated February 3, 2014 which, after a hearing, upon remittitur, denied his motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46 on his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, which sentence was originally imposed on April 4, 1995. Ordered that the order is affirmed.

ORDER RICHARD W. STORY, District Judge. This case comes before the Court on Defendant Bobby Hamil’s Motion to Dismiss [11], Defendant Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia’s Motion to Dismiss [12], Defendant Bobby Hamil’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint [18], and Defendant Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amende

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Camacho, J), dated January 27, 2012, which, without a hearing, denied his motion to be resentenced pursuant to CEL 440.46 on his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon a jury verdict, on April 4, 1995. *956Ordered that t

Affirmed by published .opinion. Judge-Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge Duncan and Judge Floyd joined. NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: When Robin Fleming flew his glider plane over the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant—operated by Duke Energy Progress, Inc., in Darlington County, South Carolina—and then began circling repe

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Camacho, J), dated January 27, 2012, which, without a hearing, denied his motion to be resentenced pursuant to CEL 440.46 on his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon a jury verdict, on April 4, 1995. *956Ordered that t

OPINION GRABER, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Richard Gebhardt, a United States citizen, filed 1-130 petitions with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), seeking Legal Permanent Residence (“LPR”) status for his non-citizen wife and her three non-citizen children. The Secretary of Homeland Securit

WILLIAMS, J. |, The plaintiffs, Herman Duke and Gayle Duke, appeal a summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant, Sentry Select Insurance Company. The trial court found that uninsured motorist coverage had been validly rejected by the owner of the vehicle driven by Herman Duke at the time of the accident. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS On February 24, 2008, Herman Duk

McGEE, Judge. Aaron Lorenzo Dorsey (“Mr. Dorsey”) was shot and killed by a Duke University Police officer at approximately 1:00 a.m. on 13 March 2010, just outside the main entrance to Duke University Hospital in Durham (“the hospital”). When the shooting occurred, Preston Locklear was being treated for a serious injury in the intensive care unit of the hospital. A number of mem

BRYANT, Judge. *2 Where plaintiff had a right to enter defendants' properties pursuant to a valid easement, we affirm the trial court's ruling of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. In 1911, the predecessor to plaintiff Duke Energy Progress, Inc., recorded with the Wake Co

Opinion and Order Bruce Howe Hendricks, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on the motion of the Defendants Duke Energy, Inc.,1 and William “Randy” Gideon (collectively the “Duke Defendants”) for summary judgment (ECF No. 135) and on the motion of Defendants JW Byrd, Joyce C. Everett, Gary Streett, and the Darlington County Sheriffs Office (collectivel

BYE, Circuit Judge. Duke Grider (“Grider”) and Kami Lee Grider filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Missouri state law claiming officers of the Springfield Police Department violated Grider’s statutory and constitutional rights, in part by using excessive force. The parties' filed motions for summary judgment. As relevant to this appeal, the district court found

EDMUNDS, Justice. *3 Defendant Herbert A. Gray (defendant) owns real property located in Huntersville, North Carolina. Plaintiff Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (plaintiff or Duke) owns an easement allowing construction of and access to its power lines. A portion of defendant’s property encroaches on plaintiffs e

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of January 2015 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of June 2015." Therefore the case is docketed as of t

786 F.Supp.2d 887 (2011) Ryan McFADYEN, Matthew Wilson and Breck Archer, Plaintiffs, v. DUKE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants. No. 1:07CV953. United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina. March 31, 2011. *898 Robert C. Ekstrand, Ekstrand & Ekstrand, LLP, Durham, NC, for Plaintiffs. Jamie S. Gorelick, Jennifer M. O'C