Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This case comes before the court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and, in the Alternative, for a Declaratory Judgment. (Doc. 462). The motion actually seeks relief for plaintiffs’ counsel, as to the following respondents who were not parties to

789 F.Supp.2d 1090 (2011) Peggy JONES, LaRonda Blakely, Marsha Corwin, Janet Engelken, Robin Hartkopp, Pamm Joyner-Azbill, Judy Klimesh, Shirley Long, Amber Pletsch, Kathleen Price, William Steven, Verna Sunnes, and Saundra West, Plaintiffs, v. DOLGENCORP, INC., and Dollar General Partners, Defendants. No. C 10-3020-MWB. United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division.

*739SMITH, Justice. Dolgencorp, Inc. (“Dolgencorp”), which owns and operates Dollar General retail discount stores, appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Arlie Taylor on Taylor’s claims alleging negligence and wantonness. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and render a judgment for Dolgencorp. Facts and Procedural Histo

ORDER GREGORY K. FRIZZELL, CHIEF JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Before the court is the Motion to Dismiss of defendant Dolgencorp, LLC (“Dollar General”) [Dkt. # 12]. Plaintiff Will Sisemore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (“Sisemore”), asserts claims for violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (“OCPA”), breach of an implied warranty of merchantability, breac

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. After returning from military service in Afghanistan, Samuel Scudder brought suit against Dolgencorp, LLC, doing business as Dollar General Stores ("Dollar General"), alleging the company denied him reemployment as required under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 ("USERRA"),

MARCUS, Circuit Judge: When a Winn-Dixie supermarket signs on to anchor a shopping center, its lease often contains a restrictive covenant sharply limiting grocery sales by other tenants. In this complex lawsuit, Winn-Dixie claimed that, since 2005, it suffered more than $90 million in lost profits because Defendants Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and Big Lots violated, and contin

Case: 12-14527 Date Filed: 03/05/2014 Page: 1 of 72 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ Nos. 12-14527; 12-14742; 12-14825 ________________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 9:11-cv-80601-DMM, 9:11-cv-80638-DMM WINN-DIXIE

OPINION CEDARBAUM, District Judge. Chrisha Creations, Ltd. sues Dolgencorp., Inc., Dollar General Corp., and Family Dollar Stores, Inc. for infringing U.S. Patents Nos. 7,302,769 (“the '769 patent”) and 7,216,446 (“the '446 Patent”). Because the parties do not agree on the correct construction of certain terms used in the claims of the '769 patent, I held a hearing in accordance with Markma

Faye Hall sued Dolgencorp, Inc. ("Dolgencorp"), which owns and operates Dollar General Store discount stores, alleging negligence and wantonness after the contents of a bottle of liquid drain cleaner spilled onto her face from a shelf in the Dollar General Store in Marion. At trial, at the close of Hall's case-in-chief, Dolgencorp filed a motion for a judgment as a matter of law ("JML") as to Hall's negligence and wantonness claims. The trial court granted Dolgencorp's motion as to th

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Andrea R. Wood, United States District Judge This case concerns the allegedly discriminatory use of criminal background checks in hiring and firing determinations by Defendant Dolgencorp, LLC (“Dollar General”). After receiving charges of discrimination from two former Dollar General -employees, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) investigated and d

Cite as 2020 Ark. 208 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-18-313 Opinion Delivered: May 28, 2020 DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION; DOLGENCORP, LLC, D/B/A DOLLAR APPEAL FROM THE MONTGOMERY GENERAL; CADDO TRADING CO., COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT INC.; AND RODNEY FAGAN AND JUDY [NO. CV-13-30] FAGAN APPELLA

Cite as 2020 Ark. 208 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-18-313 Opinion Delivered: May 28, 2020 DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION; DOLGENCORP, LLC, D/B/A DOLLAR APPEAL FROM THE MONTGOMERY GENERAL; CADDO TRADING CO., COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT INC.; AND RODNEY FAGAN AND JUDY [NO. CV-13-30] FAGAN APPELLANTS

Case: 22-1755 Document: 63 Page: 1 Filed: 09/06/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ PARKERVISION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2022-1755, 2024-2221 ______________________

Case: 22-1755 Document: 63 Page: 1 Filed: 09/06/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ PARKERVISION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2022-1755, 2024-2221 ______________________

Anson v Monticello Raceway Mgt., Inc. (2023 NY Slip Op 03393) Anson v Monticello Raceway Mgt., Inc. 2023 NY Slip Op 03393 Decided on June 22, 2023 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuan

PARKER, Justice. *235Conecuh Timber, Inc., Ayres Forestry, Inc., BAR Forest Products, LLC, Dry Creek Loggers, Inc., Pea River Timber Company, Inc., Pineville Timber Co., LLC, and THE Timber Company, LLC (sometimes referred to as "TTC") (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the wood dealers"), sued Alabama River Group, Inc. ("ARG"), and ARG'

PARKER, Justice. *235Conecuh Timber, Inc., Ayres Forestry, Inc., BAR Forest Products, LLC, Dry Creek Loggers, Inc., Pea River Timber Company, Inc., Pineville Timber Co., LLC, and THE Timber Company, LLC (sometimes referred to as "TTC") (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the wood dealers"), sued Alabama River Group, Inc. ("ARG"), and ARG'

MEMORANDUM OPINION SIMANDLE, Chief Judge In this employment discrimination action, Defendants Dollar General, Inc., Bob Miller, and Vince Triboletti (hereinafter, “Defendants” or “Dollar General”) move for summaiy judgment based upon their belief that the undisputed record demonstrates, as a matter of law, that they had no obligation to accommodate Plaintiff Matthew Webster’s (hereinafter, “Plaintiff’) relig

ORDER AND REASONS ON MOTION JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This is an employment discrimination action brought by two African-American plaintiffs, Quinton O’Neal and Demon Me-lancon, against their former employer, *412Cargill, Inc. The complaint asserts claims of retaliation, discrimination (in O’Neal’s case, apparently,,

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for final disposition after a bench trial that was held on May 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 22 regarding Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief and damages against all Defendants based on Defendants’ alleged violations of Plaintiffs’ real propert