Kingwood Specialty Hospital v. Ramona Barley |
Appellants, Kingwood Specialty Hospital, Ltd. and Kingwood Specialty Hospital (collectively, “Kingwood”), bring this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion to dismiss the medical malpractice claims of appellee, Ramona Barley. In two issues, Kingwood claims that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion to dismiss. We affirm the judgment of th $0 (10-29-2010 - TX) |
Patrica Sanford v. Member Works, Inc. |
We must decide whether consumers can pursue claims against a company that allegedly deceived them into buying memberships in a discount club. |
Timothy King v. McPherson Hospital a/k/a Trinity Health-Michigan |
The question presented to this panel is whether plaintiff may invoke MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f) to reinstate a case after entry of a final judgment in favor of defendants because of a subsequent change or clarification in the law. In the prior decision in this case, King v McPherson Hosp, 287 Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 284436, issued April 27, 2010) (King I), the panel held that a plaintiff sh $0 (10-19-2010 - MI) |
Charles C. Costa v. City of Detroit |
Charles Costa, as the owner, and Ronald Scott, as his tenant, seek compensation arising from the demolition of a fire-damaged building and the loss of the personalty contained therein. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the City of Detroit (the “City”) and F Moss Wrecking Company (“Moss Wrecking”), finding Costa’s and Scott’s claims were precluded by the doctrines $0 (10-21-2010 - MI) |
Carlos Villacres v. ABM Industries, Inc., et al. |
In a prior class action, employees sued their employer, alleging failure to pay overtime compensation (see Lab. Code, §§ 510, 1194), failure to pay wages for a split shift (see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. (4)(C)), and violation of the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200–17209). The employees also sought civil penalties under the Labor Code. (See Lab. Code, § 558 $0 (10-22-2010 - CA) |
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights v. City and County of San Francisco |
A majority of the court has concluded that the plaintiffs have standing. A separate majority, for differing reasons, affirms the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claim. Parts I and II of this opinion are joined by Judges THOMAS, SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, BYBEE, and IKUTA. |
Marzo Club, LLC, Enero Lakes, LLC, Febrero Land, LLC, and 2006 Brazoria Venture, LLC v. Columbia Lakes Homeowners Association |
This appeal arises from a declaratory judgment action in which the plaintiff, a homeowners association, sought a judicial determination and declaration of its rights, power, and authority regarding its role as a developer of a subdivision and its ability to amend the deed restrictions for the entire development. The defendants, who had purchased for development several parcels identified on the p $0 (11-30--0001 - TX) |
Patricia M. Johnson v. Wayne Ventling |
In this appeal, Johnson challenges the trial court's denial of her motion to enforce contractual alimony provisions agreed to by appellee, Wayne Ventling. By two issues, Johnson contends: (1) that the trial court erred in determining that the contractual alimony provisions were unenforceable; and (2) that she is entitled to a judgment of $142,500, representing the amount of alimony alleged to be $0 (10-21-2010 - TX) |
Karen Kokins v. Teleflex, Inc. |
Appellants Karen Kokins and the City of Westminster sued Teleflex in this products liability action. The jury returned a verdict for Teleflex. Appellants now ask us to grant them a new trial because they claim that the district court improperly instructed the jury on two issues. First, Appellants contend that the district court failed to give the appropriate instruction for determining whether a p $0 (10-14-2010 - CO) |
Leonard Carder, L.L.P. v. Patten, Faith & Sandford |
Plaintiff and appellant Leonard Carder, LLP filed a declaratory relief action against Patten, Faith & Sandford (Patten)1 regarding distribution of attorney fees awarded in a stipulated judgment in a class action lawsuit. The trial court entered a judgment denying all relief to Leonard Carder on the basis the complaint did not present a case or controversy and that jurisdiction had been reserved wi $0 (10-12-2010 - CA) |
Abatement Incorporated, Alan Manring and Gary Laughlin v. Kyle Williams |
Appellants Abatement Incorporated and Alan Manring[1] appeal from the trial court’s judgment, entered after a jury trial, holding them jointly and severally liable for breach of an employment agreement with appellee Kyle Williams. In nine issues, Abatement and Manring argue that judgment was improper because the contract was unenforceable under the statute of frauds, the terms were too indefini $0 (10-07-2010 - TX) |
W.W. Webber, L.L.C v. Harris County Toll Road Authority |
The trial court dismissed, for want of jurisdiction, a lawsuit filed by appellant, W.W. Webber, L.L.C. (“Webber”), against a governmental entity, appellee Harris County Toll Road Authority (“HCTRA”), for breach of contract and quantum meruit. On appeal, Webber contends HCTRA waived its governmental immunity by conduct. Because the Texas Supreme Court has already rejected waiver by conduc $0 (10-14-2010 - TX) |
Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick v. County of Orange |
The County of Orange, along with two of its social workers, Marcie Vreeken and Helen Dwojak (collectively the County), appeals from a substantial monetary judgment in favor of Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick for damages caused by the County‟s violation of her federal civil rights.1 Specifically, the County was found liable based upon improper conduct by the social workers, which caused Fogarty-Hardwick $0 (06-14-2010 - CA) |
Lawrence T. Flack v. Dan H. Hanke |
The following motions are denied: (1) Appellees John D. Fisch and Mary M. Potter’s Motion for Rehearing; (2) Appellees John D. Fisch and Mary M. Potter’s Motion for En Banc Reconsideration; (3) Langley & Banack, Incorporated a/k/a Langley & Banack, Inc., Steven R. Brook and David S. Gragg’s Motion for Rehearing; (4) Langley & Banack, Incorporated a/k/a Langley & Banack, Inc., Steven R. Brook $0 (10-13-2010 - TX) |
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Jeffrey Allen Martin |
¶1 In this disciplinary proceeding against a lawyer, the issues to be decided are: (1) Does the record submitted for our examination provide sufficient evidence for a meaningful de novo consideration of the complaint and of its disposition?1 and (2) Is a public reprimand an appropriate disciplinary sanction for respondent's breach of professional ethics? We answer both questions in the affirmativ $0 (11-30--0001 - OK) |
James D. Clark v. Mark B. Archer |
¶1 This case involves a previous, unsuccessful petition for interlocutory appeal of a judgment certified as final under rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. The interlocutory petition was denied by the court of appeals in 2008, and many months later, the Appellant (Mr. Archer) attempted to appeal the same issues (this time as an appeal as of right) at the conclusion of the trial in th $0 (10-05-2010 - UT) |
Siriwat Singhaviroj v. Board of Education of the Town of Fairfield, et al. |
In this most unusual of summary judgment cases, the defendants, the town of Fairfield (town), the board of education of the town of Fairfield (board) and certain employees thereof,1 appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motions for a continuance of trial and summary judgment against the plaintiff, Siriwat Singhaviroj. The defendants claim that the court (1) improperly denied th $0 (10-03-2010 - CT) |
Eugene Wideman v. State of Colorado |
Eugene Wideman, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the State of Colorado, Roslin Vigna, and Douglas Glover. He also asserts that he is appealing the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) motion for amendment and request for a rehearing, but he does not support this assertion with argument. Hence, he has waived appellate review of the dis $0 (09-28-2010 - CO) |
Virgil Shelton v. Kennedy Funding |
This appeal arises out of the sale of an Arkansas cemetery. A jury awarded the cemetery’s seller, Virgil Shelton, $1,675,000 on his breach-of-contract and fraud claims against Kennedy Funding, Inc. (KFI). KFI appeals. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for reduction of Shelton’s judgment to $675,000. |
Carolyn P. Brandt v. Joseph F. Gordon Architect, Inc. |
¶1 Plaintiff in a multi-party, multi claim, tort action dismissed without prejudice after the trial court granted summary judgment from the bench in favor of one of the defendants, Joseph F. Gordon Architect, Inc. We grant certiorari to determine if Plaintiffs' dismissal was permissible and effective. |
Chantell Sackett v. United States Environmental Protection Agency |
We determine whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to conduct review of administrative compliance orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(a)(3), before the EPA has filed a lawsuit in federal court to enforce the compliance order. We join our sister circuits and hold that the Clean Water Act precludes pre-enforcement $0 (09-17-2010 - ID) |
Judith Thomas v. Eugene N. Clayton, III, M.D. |
Judith and John Thomas appeal the trial court’s grant of Dr. Eugene Clayton’s no-evidence summary judgment motion in a health care liability suit. We affirm. |
Kim Barger v. Michael J. Astrue |
Plaintiff Kim Barger appeals from a district court order affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny disability benefits. In so ruling, the district court adopted the thorough recommendation of the magistrate judge, to which Ms. Barger, then represented by counsel, had filed no objections. Applying the firm waiver rule that governs such circumstances in this circuit, we affirm. |
Buddy Gregg Motor Homes, Inc. v. Marathon Coach, Inc. |
This appeal presents substantive and procedural issues concerning the "hybrid claims resolution process" for certain civil damages claims relating to the sale of motor vehicles in Texas. See Subaru of Am., Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc., 84 S.W.3d 212, 222-26 (Tex. 2002). It arises from proceedings following our decision in Buddy Gregg Motor Homes, Inc. v. Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Dep $0 (09-15-2010 - ) |
John Bauer v. Douglas Aquatics, Inc. |
Defendant Douglas Aquatics, Inc. (Appellant) appeals the trial court’s order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Appellant raises the sole question of whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over it by the North Carolina courts comports with due process and we conclude that it does, we a $0 (09-14-2010 - NC) |
Next Page |