This appeal represents trial attorney Geoffrey N. Fieger’s latest attempt to involve the federal courts in his long-running dispute with several justices of the Michigan Supreme Court.1 See, e.g., Fieger v. Mich. Supreme Court, 553 F.3d 955 (6th Cir. 2009); Fieger v. Ferry, 471 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. 2006); Gilbert v. Ferry, 413 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2005). In his second trip to our court in the presen

Appellants, Diamond Offshore Management Company and Diamond Offshore Services Company (together, “the Diamond parties”), appeal from a judgment, rendered after a bench trial, in an admiralty case. We determine whether the trial court’s award of future maintenance and cure to appellee, Jonathan Cummings, was in clear error. We reverse that portion of the judgment awarding cure, we affirm th

Plaintiff-Appellee Frederick J. Harrington, Jr., 31 (“Harrington”) filed this action in the United States District 32 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Nina Gershon, 33 Judge), against Defendants-Appellants Atlantic Sounding Co., 34 Inc., Weeks Marine, Inc. (Atlantic Sounding’s corporate parent), 35 and the vessel MV CANDACE (collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant -3- 1 to the Jo

Douglas and Linda Knutson appeal from the order of the District Court dismissing without prejudice their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against the City of Fargo, North Dakota.

On July 8, 2003, a cast-iron water main belonging to the City broke, flooding the Knutsons' property and damaging their house and yard. In August 2004, they filed suit against the City in state court seeking damages under

Loren Zutz and Elden Elseth, members of the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District Board (Board), filed this action alleging state law defamation and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the six appellees whom we divide into three different groups: (1) co-Board members John Nelson and Arlyn Stroble; (2) an administrator and an employee of the Board Nick Drees and Danny Omdahl and (3) th

Appellant John P. Miller contracted with appellee James G. Herman for the construction of a new home. Herman installed Pella windows in the home as part of that contract, and, according to Miller, the windows have leaked, causing him personal and property damage. He brought this action against Herman, Herman’s construction company, James G. Herman & Associates, and Pella Products, Inc. (“Pella

Eva Lovene Leavell, individually and as the administratrix of the estate of her deceased

Ms. Leavell and the Department have a long and litigious 1 history. However, because the present appeal is limited in scope, we recount only those facts that are pertinent to, or will aid in the understanding of, the issue presently before us. husband, Daniel Leavell, instituted this action against the

Michele Soltwisch, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Ernest Soltwisch (the Estate), appeals a final judgment that granted Pasco County's motion for directed verdict on the parties' negligence and res ipsa loquitur claims. Because there was evidence from which a jury could have concluded that Pasco County was liable for Mr. Soltwisch's injuries, we find the trial court er

Plaintiffs, Riverview Health Institute LLC; Middletown Surgical Associates Inc. d/b/a Surgical Weight Loss Center; and Oak Leaf Health Group LLC d/b/a St. Elizabeth’s Laboratories, appeal an order entered by the district court dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims filed pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., as reverse preempted by

[¶1] Northfork Citizens for Responsible Development, David Jamison, and Robert Hoszwa (collectively Northfork) have appealed the district court’s affirmance of the approval by the Board of County Commissioners of Park County (the Board) of a subdivision proposed by Worthington Group of Wyoming, LLC (Worthington).1 Northfork raises evidentiary and procedural issues. In a cross-appeal, Worthingto

Appellant Patricia Dodson seeks control over the fate of eighteen cryogenically frozen embryos, which she created with her ex-husband through the In-Vitro Fertilization (“IVF”) Program at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (“UAMS”). Dodson brought this action, alleging that UAMS’s refusal to allow her control over the disposition of the embryos violates her constitutional ri

In Becker v. Anne Arundel County, 174 Md. App. 114, 145 (2007), this Court addressed the issue of the degree of specificity required for findings by a board of zoning appeals in granting or denying an application for variances to the buffer requirements of the State's critical area law. In this case, we will apply the teachings of Becker and elaborate on some of them.

The Critical Area Comm

The defendant, Germanie Fequiere, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court following the denial of her motion to dismiss, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, this foreclosure action brought by the substitute plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee.1

The defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff had standing

[¶1] This appeal presents questions related to a high-low settlement agreement—between a person injured in an automobile collision and an underinsured tortfeasor—and the interplay of that agreement with the injured party’s underinsured motorist insurance policy and Maine’s underinsured motorist coverage statute, 24-A M.R.S. § 2902 (2009). [¶2] Patricia Ruth Beal, who was injured in an a

Jocelyn Roberts, a flight attendant, was injured while working on a March 6, 2005, flight from Boston to Las Vegas for Song LLC, which was owned and operated by Delta Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta"). She received a lump sum workers' compensation payment from Song and Delta's insurer, which insured both Delta and Song under the same policy. Nonetheless, Roberts sued Delta for negligence. She said that he

Appellant Carl T. Wibbenmeyer appeals a district court judgment that awarded appellees TechTerra Communications, Inc.; Christian Behier; and Adella Almazan-Seabolt attorney's fees but no other relief. Wibbenmeyer argues that there is no statutory or contractual basis for awarding attorney's fees and that, if there was, the amount awarded was an abuse of discretion. We agree that there was no stat

In this accelerated interlocutory appeal, appellant, the City of Pharr (the "City"), challenges the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in favor of appellee, Marie Esther Aguillon a/k/a Maria Esther Aguillon. By one issue, the City argues that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Aguillon's claims because she did not meet the statutory requirements of the Texas

In this real estate dispute involving title to a residence, appellant, Dennis C. DeAcetis (Dennis), appeals a final judgment consolidating four summary judgments granted in favor of appellees, Marianne Whitley, former wife of Dennis (Marianne), Michael DeAcetis, son of Dennis and Marianne (Michael), James M. Gary, Kimberly C. Gary, purchasers of the residence from Marianne (the Garys), and Martha

Metabolite appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado’s grant of summary judgment. See Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Metabolite Labs., Inc., 571 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (D. Colo. 2008). The district court granted LabCorp’s motion for summary judgment on its complaint for declaratory judgment that it did not breach a license agreement for failure to pay know-how royalti

Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (collectively, “Ariad”) brought suit against Eli Lilly & Company (“Lilly”) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 6,410,516 (“the ’516 patent”). After

For nearly ten years, plaintiff Russian Media Group, LLC has battled in court with defendant Shai Harmelech and his companies, charging that Harmelech pirated Russian-language satellite televi2 sion programming to enable him to compete unfairly against RMG’s legitimate business. The district court found RMG’s complaints justified and enjoined Harmelech and the other defendants from distributin

Michael Tully sued Paul Barada and Catherine Custer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that they violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by summoning him into court and initiating juvenile proceedings against him without probable cause. The district court dismissed Tully’s case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Appellant City of Crowley, Texas, (the ACity@) appeals the trial court=s order denying its plea to the jurisdiction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 51.014(a)(8) (Vernon 2008). In a single issue, the City argues that the trial court erred by denying its plea to the jurisdiction because Appellee Doug Ray failed to establish a waiver of the City=s governmental immunity by pleading an underl

Appellant, Jeniffer Aloysius ("Aloysius") appeals the trial court's denial of her special appearance. Aloysius complains that the trial court erred because she lacks the necessary minimum contacts with Texas to establish its jurisdiction over her. Aloysius also complains that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss this suit because Appellee, StenoMaster, Inc. ("StenoMaster") lacks capacity to

This court is called upon to decide whether a complaint alleging that postassault negligence caused or exacerbated injuries falls under an insurance policy's assault and battery exclusion. We find it does not. We are also asked whether an insurer breached its duty to defend as a matter of law when, relying upon an equivocal interpretation of case law, it gave itself the benefit of the doubt