Paula Dupont was shopping at a Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc., when plastic bins fell from a display shelf and struck her on the head. Paula and her husband, James (collectively, Duponts), filed a negligence action seeking damages related to her injuries. The case proceeded to trial and a jury returned a verdict in Fred’s Stores’ favor. The district court1 dismissed the Duponts’ complain

Shelton Modelist appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against several judges, attorneys, and banks involved in foreclosure proceedings against his property. Modelist alleged that the defendant-appellees conspired with each other to deprive him of his constitutional rights, including due process, equal protection, and his right of access to the courts. Modelist al

Judy Chou Chiung-Yu Wang (“Wang�) appeals the district court’s dismissal of her claims against her former employer, Prudential Life Insurance Company and affiliated entities (collectively, “Prudential�), and several Prudential employees. On appeal, Wang argues that the district court erred by: (1) failing to convert the defendants’ motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment;

1 James Coddington was tried by jury and convicted of First Degree Murder in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-1997-1500. He received the death penalty. This Court affirmed Coddington's conviction, reversed the sentence, and remanded the case for resentencing. Coddington v. State, 2006 OK CR 34, 142 P.3d 437. Coddington again received the death penalty after a resentencing trial.

{1} Eker Brothers, Inc. (Subcontractor) sued John G. Rehders, General Contractor, Inc. (General) seeking payment for work Subcontractor had performed. The district court found that Subcontractor was owed $74,964.05 and that General had incurred $42,448.20 in damages, but that Subcontractor’s “claims [were] barred by its willful, material[,] and anticipatory breach of the parties’ contract.â€

¶1 Claudia and Eugene Orr, individually and on behalf of their deceased son, Kevin Orr, and Holly Orr, individually and on behalf of Kevin’s heirs (collectively, the Orrs), appeal the district court’s order granting Uintah County’s (the County) motion to dismiss. We affirm.1

¶2 In their complaint, the Orrs set forth three claims for relief against the County, the only defendant in t

¶1 Defendant Dr. Lavern Davidhizar appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his claims for negligent misrepresentation and fraud and his affirmative defense of fraud (collectively, the fraud claims). We reverse and remand. Plaintiffs David Fisher and Office Management Consultants, LC (collectively, OMC) appeal the trial court’s denial of its motion to strike and of its denial of OMC’s motion

¶1 Amber S. Taylor (Mother) appeals the district court’s decision to enforce a relocation provision of a stipulated divorce decree that automatically transferred physical custody of the parties’ two children to Clinton J. Elison (Father) without first considering whether a change in the existing physical custody would be in the children’s best interests. We reverse and remand.

BACKGR

¶1 Robin Doyle petitioned the trial court for a modification of the custody of her son, Hyrum. After a two-day bench trial, the court granted her petition, transferring custody from the child’s father, Doug Doyle, to Robin. Doug appealed to the court of appeals, which affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. Doug then sought certiorari here on the issues affirmed by the court of appe

¶1 In this case, we are asked to determine whether the doctrine of claim preclusion applies to small claims judgments. We conclude that claim preclusion is applicable to small claims judgments because application of the doctrine will promote finality, judicial economy, and consistent judgments.

BACKGROUND

¶2 The facts in this case are undisputed. In 2008, Andrew T. Allen and Meliss

Holland & Knight and Amanda J. Monchamp for Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa (Coalition) appeals from a judgment denying its petition for writ of mandate. The petition challenged a shopping center approved by respondents City of Yucaipa and its city Council (jointly, City) and proposed by respondent and real party in interest Target Stores, Inc.

Yakov Elmakiss, appearing pro se, appeals three orders signed by the trial court granting the plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Tyler Child Support Enforcement Unit of the Attorney General of Texas, the motion for summary judgment filed by the Honorable Randall L. Rogers and Smith County, and the traditional and no evidence motion for summary judgment filed by Ruth M. Elmakiss. On appeal, Appe

This case requires us to consider whether a plaintiff can split potential legal claims against a defendant by bringing them in two different lawsuits. We conclude that related claims must be brought in a single cause of action, and the district court properly dismissed the claim-splitting plaintiffs here. We also consider whether an investor who was forced to sell his shares as the result of a mer

Susan Boggs (“Boggs�) and Fouad Rachid (“Rachid�), individually and on behalf of their minor daughter, and Fouad, Inc. (“Fouad�) (Boggs, Rachid, and Fouad, together, the “relators�) appeal the district court’s order dismissing their action on the basis of res judicata in favor of the City of Cleveland (the “City�). For the following reasons, we reverse the district court and

In this interlocutory appeal,[1] appellant, the City of Deer Park (“the City�), challenges the trial court’s order denying its plea to the jurisdiction on the breach of contract, tort, equitable, and statutory claims made against it by appellees, Jose Ibarra, Emilio Vargas, Mario Torres, Jose Lemus, Roberto Delgado, Santiago Bravo, Carlos Vasquez, Hugo Martinez, Saul Balseca, Vicente Martine

¶1 Certiorari was granted on insured's petition to determine whether - qua victor in a tort claim against his UM insurer for bad-faith refusal to pay an insurance loss - the insured was entitled to counsel fee, prejudgment interest and costs. Tendered are three issues: [1] Does the exclusion of UM coverage from the terms of 36 O.S. 1991 § 3629 (B)1 abrogate the common law of tort liability settl

Plaintiff-Appellants (“Plaintiffs�) are a class of economically vulnerable Arizonans who receive public health care benefits through the state’s Medicaid agency. In 2003, Arizona’s Medicaid agency notified Plaintiffs that their copayments would be increased, and that these increased copayments would be mandatory, allowing providers to decline to serve them if they could not afford their co

Grandparents and other nonparents are typically not entitled to visitation with a minor child as a matter of right because there is a recognized presumption that a parent’s desire to deny visitation is in the best interest of the child. However, pursuant to NRS 125C.050, a grandparent or other nonparent may be granted judicially approved visitation rights in some instances. The first issue pre

Arguing they are likely to succeed on the merits of their case, retirees and class representatives Harold Dewhurst and David Bryan, together with the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively, "the Retirees"), appeal the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction seeking continuatio

¶1 We are asked to decide whether Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.�) section 20-259.01(B) (Supp. 2010) requires that an insured sign a form rejecting underinsured motorist (“UIM�) coverage. Because the statute does not require a signed form, we reverse the summary judgment granted to Michael Blevins and remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to enter summary judgment for

¶1 PER CURIAM. This case began with a dispute over a withheld security deposit and snowballed into a three-day, fifteen-witness jury trial. Andrew S. Falk, d/b/a Lake Country Auto Care, filed suit against Droegkamp Sales & Service, Inc., for recovery of his $6,000 security deposit on the parties’ commercial lease. Droegkamp counterclaimed for breach of contract, theft, criminal dama

Philip Morris USA, Inc. (Philip Morris), appeals a judgment awarding Jodie Bullock $13.8 million in punitive damages after a jury trial. A jury previously had awarded $850,000 in compensatory damages. Philip Morris contends the punitive damages award is barred by res judicata as a result of the settlement of an action by the California Attorney General against Philip Morris and other cigarette man

After her husband Rodney Johnson was shot and killed in the line of duty as a Houston police officer, Joslyn Johnson sued the City of Houston. She alleged that the City was grossly negligent in that it failed to implement policies and procedures to safeguard police officers during routine traffic stops, and that the City’s immunity from suit from such a claim is discriminatory and violates the

Appellant Kojo Wih Nkansah, pro se, appeals from orders granting a motion to dismiss, a plea to the jurisdiction, and a motion for summary judgment in favor of Appellees University of Texas at Arlington (UTA), James Spaniola, Dana Dunn, Philip Cohen, Rod Hissong, and Sherman Wyman and from an order denying his motion for new trial. We will affirm.

UTA dismissed Nkansah from its S

2 Plaintiff-appellant Derrick Brown (“Brown�), Personal Representative of the Estate of
3 Dorothy Brown, deceased, appeals from summary judgments certified as final pursuant to Federal
4 Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) in favor of defendants Noxubee General Hospital (“Noxubee�) and
5 Baptist Memorial Hospital-Golden Triangle (“Baptist�) and from a summary judgment in favor of