Rachel Hall appeals the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the ContiGroup Companies, Inc., et al., on certain of her nuisance claims. Everett and Cindy Peters, co-plaintiffs with Rachel Hall, also contest two of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings in the jury trial of their nuisance claims. The ContiGroup Companies have filed a cross-appeal that is contingent on any

Harold J. Cramer appeals the trial court's judgment dismissing his amended petition pursuant to Rule 55.27(a)(6),1 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Cramer asserts that his amended petition stated claims against Charles Smoot and Rhonda Rice for "money had and received." Finding that the trial court's judgment does not constitute a final judgment for purposes of appeal

Paula Poindexter, appellee, sued the University of Texas at Austin and Ellen Wartella (collectively, "the University") for, among other things, employment discrimination based on disparate treatment, retaliation, and disparate impact. See Tex. Lab. Code Ann. §§ 21.051, .055, .122 (West 2006). The University filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting in relevant part that Poindexter's retaliation

Appellant Karen Baghaei d/b/a Arkadia Auto Sales appeals from the trial court=s (sic) (The Second District Publishes its reports with = signs and other characters substituted for the usual characters.) grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee AppOne, Inc. In five issues, Baghaei argues that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment. We will reverse and remand.

As Justice Holmes once remarked, “pretty much all law consists in forbidding men to do some things that they want to do.” Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525, 568, 43 S. Ct. 394, 405 (1923) (Holmes, J., dissenting). In this case the Randolph County Board of Registrars wanted to change the voting registration of Henry Cook, a member of the county’s board of education, which also wou

This appeal arises out of an intellectual property dispute between Plaintiff St. Luke’s Cataract and Laser Institute, P.C. (“St. Luke’s”) and Defendants Dr. James C. Sanderson and James C. Sanderson, M.D., LLC (“Dr. Sanderson”) regarding the ownership and use of two Internet domain names (laserspecialist.com and lasereyelid.com) and an Internet website (“the LaserSpecialist.com websi

In April 2006, Joseph Melfi refinanced his home mortgage with WMC Mortgage Corporation ("WMC"). At the closing, Melfi received from WMC a notice of his right to rescind the transaction. The notice is required for such a transaction by the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a) (2006). Assuming that the notice complies with TILA, a borrower is given three "business days" to rescind the

¶1 Bowen Machine & Fabricating, Inc., doing business as Bowen Industrial Contractors, Inc., (“Bowen”) appeals from the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment to James and Sherry Tarron on the issue of vicarious liability and the subsequent judgment after a jury trial finding Bowen 60% liable for the Tarrons’ damages. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand.

Facts

Marlene Petzel1 appeals a summary judgment dismissing her medical malpractice claims against Mark Wikenheiser and Valley Orthopedics. She argues there are genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment on the issues of negligence, res ipsa loquitur, respondeat superior, and borrowed servant. We conclude summary judgment is unwarranted regarding all four claims, and reverse and remand.

The principal issue in this appeal is whether a local parish or the general church and its diocese own property held in the parish's name, after the parish vestry and a majority of the congregants voted to disaffiliate the parish from the general church and affiliate with another church. After the parties completed their briefing, the California Supreme Court resolved the church property issue aga

This appeal presents the question, among others, as to the appropriate criteria that a district court should apply in considering a motion to enter a preliminary injunction requiring a product recall in a trademark infringement case. We join the Third Circuit in requiring that a district court must find a substantial risk of danger to the public or other special circumstances in order to enter an

We hold that an employee who, on behalf of himself and other employees, sues an employer under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) for Labor Code violations must satisfy class action requirements, but that those requirements need not be met when an employee‘s representative action against an employer is seeking civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys G

The Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”) is a large-scale manufacturer of chemical products, including herbicides and pesticides. In the 1990s it began developing a variety of alfalfa that would be resistant to one of its leading herbicides. The United States Department of Agriculture, through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”), approved the genetically modified alfalfa in 2

This appeal concerns whether a defendant is entitled to attorney’s fees as a prevailing party under § 505 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 505, when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses without prejudice a lawsuit containing copyright claims. In Corcoran v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 121 F.2d 575, 576 (9th Cir. 1941), we held a defendant in a copyright suit was a prevailing party and wa

Appellants Carolee Okland, Jeremy Rogers, Deepak Malhotra, and Dinah Leffert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appeal the trial court's orders striking Appellants' third amended petition, denying Malhotra's and Leffert's motion to intervene, and granting Appellees Travelocity.com, Inc. and Travelocity.com, LP's (collectively "Travelocity") plea to the jurisdiction and m

B&B Hardware (“B&B”) appeals the district court’s dismissal, on collateral estoppel grounds, of its trademark infringement action filed against Hargis Industries (“Hargis”). For the reasons explained herein, we reverse the dismissal and remand this matter to the district court for further consideration.

I.

In 1990, B&B began manufacturing and selling a fastener product unde

The goal of a mortgage flipping scam is to deceive a potential lender about the value of the collateral. Go-between G finds a building for sale and arranges its sale to Buyer B for more than its market value. B borrows the money for the purchase, assisted by Appraiser A, who certifies to the lender that the property is worth more than the actual purchase price. Someone else (if not G himself) cert

Faced with a motion for a preliminary injunction, the district court held an evidentiary hearing, reserved decision, and thereafter granted the requested relief. Waldron v. Geo. Weston Bakeries, Inc., 575 F. Supp. 2d 271, 273 (D. Me. 2008). That ukase is the focal point of this appeal.

We rehearse the facts as found by the district court, consistent with record support. The plainti

As an element of the 1986 reorganization plan of the Johns-Manville Corporation (Manville), the United StatesBankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New Yorkenjoined certain lawsuits against Manville’s insurers, including The Travelers Indemnity Company and its affiliates (Travelers). The question is whether the injunc-tion bars state-law actions against Travelers based on allegations eith

“Residents” participating in accredited graduate medical education programs receive substantial payments (called stipends) from the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research (“Mayo”) and the University of Minnesota (the “University”) for medical and patient care services provided by the residents at affiliated and unaffiliated hospitals and clinics. The difficult issue in thes

Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. (collectively “Medtronic”) appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., No. 01-CV-10165 (D. Mass. Dec. 11, 2007). The district court denied Medtronic’s ensnarement defense after a jury found that Medtronic had infringed

In this design patent case, in which the patentee sought a preliminary injunction, we first clarify the requirements for such an injunction. We then determine, in light of that clarification and the evidence before the trial court, whether that court was correct in denying the sought-for relief. Because we conclude that under the applicable legal standard the trial court did not abuse its discreti

The University of Pittsburgh (“Pitt”) appeals the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing with prejudice its patent infringement action for lack of standing. Judgment, Univ. of Pittsburgh v. Varian Med. Sys., Inc., No.07-CV-0491 (W.D. Penn. June 16, 2008). Varian Medical Systems, Inc. (“Varian”) cross appeals the district court

In 1968, the heirs of J. H. Northup, predecessors in interest to appellant Northup Properties, Inc. (“Northup”), executed an oil-and-gas lease of 4,327 acres in Kentucky (the “Lease”) to United Fuel and Gas Company, the predecessor in interest to appellee Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. (“Chesapeake”). For nearly forty years, no lessee—including Chesapeake—marketed either oil or gas

In this case the Supreme Court of Appeals of WestVirginia reversed a trial court judgment, which had entered a jury verdict of $50 million. Five justices heard thecase, and the vote to reverse was 3 to 2. The questionpresented is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated when one of the justices in the majority denied a recusal motion. The basis for the motion was tha