Cases

569 F.3d 307 (2009) Robert MERRIWEATHER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. T.A. ZAMORA, et al., Defendants-Appellants. No. 08-1570. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued and Submitted: December 5, 2008. Decided and Filed: June 24, 2009. *310 ARGUED: Michael E. Robinson, United States Department of Justice, W

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 09a0217p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X - ROBERT MERRIWEATHER,

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 21a0165p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ WALTER J. HIMMELREICH, │ Plaintiff-

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 18-2847 & 18-3310 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CREDIT BUREAU CENTER, LLC, and MICHAEL BROWN, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeals from the United

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 21a0165p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ WALTER J. HIMMELREICH, │ Plaintiff-

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 18-2847 & 18-3310 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CREDIT BUREAU CENTER, LLC, and MICHAEL BROWN, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeals from the United

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 18-2847 & 18-3310 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CREDIT BUREAU CENTER, LLC, and MICHAEL BROWN, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeals from the United

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 20a0216p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT SCOTT O. CALLAHAN, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ │

NAKAMOTO, J. **198In this employment action involving Oregon statutory retaliation claims, we decide whether the trial court erred by refusing to give an instruction regarding the "cat's paw" theory of establishing discriminatory or retaliatory motivation. After being terminated by defendant Nike, Inc., plaintiff Douglas Ossanna sued his former

18 Cal.3d 538 (1976) 557 P.2d 75 134 Cal. Rptr. 784 [*] THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL ZAMORA et al., Defendants and Appellants. Docket No. Crim. 18869. Supreme Court of California. December 16, 1976. *541 COUNSEL Alan A. Katz, under appointment by

811 F.2d 1368 55 USLW 2469 Joseph ZAMORA, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.VALLEY FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF GRAND JUNCTION,a federally chartered savings and loan associationand a Colorado corporation, Defendant-Appellant. No. 86-1316. United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit. Feb. 17, 1987.

15 F.3d 1095NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Rosa ZAMORA, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Irma GONZALEZ; Janice Mayfield; David Schluter; S.Castaneda; Jesse Cote, Defendants-Appellees. No.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER Pamela K. Chen, United States District Judge *195Plaintiffs Kim Patrick and her son, AG, bring this action against Defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" § 1983" or " Section 1983"),

BACHARACH, Circuit Judge. A group of employees filed class and collective actions against Tyson Foods, Inc., seeking unpaid wages for time spent on pre- and post-shift activities. After the employees obtained a sizeable verdict and fee award, 1 Tyson unsuccessfully moved for judgment as a matter of law. On appeal, Tys

OPINION AND ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (Dkt, 57) AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND/OR REMITTITUR (Dkt. 57) MARK A. GOLDSMITH, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff David. Alan Smith agreed, to submit to a background investigation

*1140 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion to Remand, filed May 6, 2015 (Doc. 20)(“Mo-tion to Remand”); and (ii) Defendant Reliable, LLC’s Motion to Amend Notice of Removal to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexi

650 F.3d 350 (2011) Luisa PEREZ; Elvin Francisco Gonza Osovio, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation; Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellants, and Ray Barrientos; Maria Gomez; Juana Miguel; Gibran Moya Rivera; Gloria Paneto Castro; Shitwa Perez Lopez; Jose Antonio Santiag Lugo; Maritza Alcover

Judge Max N. Tobias, Jr. The ultimate issue in this lawsuit relates to the bidding process under Louisiana’s Public Lease Law, La. R.S. 41:1211, et seq. The plaintiff, Two Canal Street Investors, Inc. (“TCSI”), appeals the trial court’s judgment, dismissing as of non-suit its lawsuit for its failure to post security for costs pursuant to La. R.S. 13:1215. Finding that the trial court abused its discretion in order

HANISEE, Judge. {1} We have before us a matter of first impression-whether a company whose tangible property located in New Mexico is used to provide cable television programming, internet, and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) to customers comes within the definition of "communications system," thereby subjecting it to reclassification and valuation by the New Mexico T

PER CURIAM. After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.8(c) and 27.1.-2. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Co