Duane Horton (plaintiff or Horton) appeals from a Superior Court grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the Portsmouth Police Department (department) and various Town of Portsmouth officials (collectively, defendants), dismissing the plaintiff’s thirteen-count amended complaint alleging malicious prosecution, false arrest, false imprisonment, tortious denial of access to public re

Plaintiffs Rondigo, LLC and Dolores Michaels operate a farm in Richmond Township, Michigan. In 2006, Richmond Township officials became concerned about composting operations at the farm. Eventually, these concerns led to inspections and regulatory actions by State of Michigan officials and a state court action to prohibit composting at the site. In January 2008, plaintiffs filed a 54-page, six-cou

Plaintiff Kathryn (“Kitti”) Bletz brought this action individually and as a representative of her deceased husband’s estate, alleging that defendants Sergeant Travis Gribble and Deputy Brent Denny are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Michigan state law for fatally shooting her husband in the Bletz family home and unlawfully restraining her during and following her husband’s death. The di

After a nine-day trial, a jury found that police officers carrying out a search warrant for narcotics did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they performed a no-knock entry into a residence and fatally shot a woman with a gun therein.

The woman’s family and estate now allege that a variety of instructional and other errors taint that verdict. But the charge provided a complete and accu

This case presents the question whether the States, by accepting federal funds, consent to waive their sovereign immunity to suits for money damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 114 Stat. 803, 42 U. S. C. §2000cc et seq. We hold that they do not. Sovereign immunity therefore bars this suit for damages against the State of Texas.

I
<

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a claim seeking to recover damages against the school district for injuries inflicted upon a student by another student. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the school district because there was insufficient evidence to establish liability under Idaho Code § 6-904C(2). We affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

At abou

Judge Gregory R. Stidham of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation District Court appeals the district court’s order granting preliminary injunctive relief to Crowe & Dunlevy (“Crowe”) and denying Judge Stidham’s motion to dismiss. Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidham, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 1227 (N.D. Okla. 2009). Because the district court correctly denied Judge Stidham’s motion to dismiss and did not

The First Amendment of theConstitution states that Congress shall make no law abridging the “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, federal antitrust laws have been interpreted to protect these First Amendment rights by immunizing petitioning activity from liability. In this appeal from the di

Appellant Department of Aging and Disability Services, a Texas State Agency, (the Department) challenges the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in appellee Deborah K. Powell's workers' compensation retaliation case. See Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 451.001 (West 2006). By one issue, the Department argues that the trial court erred in denying its plea to the jurisdiction because the D

In two issues, Texas Tech University Health Science Center (TTUHSC), Appellant, appeals from the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss, which alleged that William C. Williams, (Williams), Appellee, failed to timely name TTUHSC as a governmental-unit defendant under Section 101.106 of the Texas Tort Claims Act, and thus deprived the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction. We reverse.

In 2006, Polk County, pursuant to a contract with the State of Wisconsin, laid and compacted six inches of gravel on Highway 65. Kelli Elmer was killed and Courtney Doolittle was severely injured when Kelli lost control of her van as it entered the gravel lift[1] later that day.

¶2 Timothy and Terry Elmer, Kelli’s representatives, and Jerome and Kathrin Doolittle, Courtney’s re

Plaintiff Robert Alspaugh filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference against numerous state and private defendants. The district court did not allow Alspaugh to conduct discovery against the state defendants, while allowing limited discovery against the private defendants. It subsequently granted summary judgment against Alspaugh on all his § 1983 claims.

Downing/Salt Pond Partners, L.P., frustrated by two state agencies' restrictions on its development of a coastal residential subdivision in Narragansett, Rhode Island, appeals the district court's dismissal of its federal takings claims under the Supreme Court's ripeness requirements for such claims, set forth in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473

Robert Curtis Harrison (husband) appeals from the trial court’s determination that it lacked in personam jurisdiction over Tammy Miriam Harrison (wife) and thus could not adjudicate the personal and property rights arising from husband’s and wife’s marriage. On appeal, husband asserts that the trial court erred by: 1) denying in personam jurisdiction over wife based upon Code § 20-146.8; 2)

In this appeal, we review the circuit court’s dismissal, upon demurrer and pleas in bar, of a property owner’s claims for compensation and damages following the demolition of a residential building by the City of Norfolk.

FACTS

The circuit court dismissed the case below on demurrer and pleas in bar without taking evidence. “Where no evidence is taken in support of a plea in bar

Defendant-Appellant Cynthia Hurry née Keller appeals the district court’s order denying her summary judgment on Plaintiff-Appellee Ricky Pittman’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hurry, a social worker employed by the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS”), was the primary case worker for Pittman’s son Najee, who was removed from his mother’s custody by

Appellant City of McAllen (the City) challenges the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss in this Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) case brought by appellee Michael Rene Corpus. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.021 (Vernon 2011). By one issue, the City argues that the trial court erred in denying its plea to the jurisdiction because Corpus failed to ple

This is an appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss filed by appellant, CHRISTUS Spohn Health System Corporation d/b/a CHRISTUS Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Memorial (“Spohn”). The trial court denied Spohn’s motion, which sought dismissal of the health care liability claims of appellees, John Ven Huizen and Vanessa Ven Huizen, individually, and as next fri

This interlocutory appeal arises from a personal injury lawsuit brought by Hugo Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez as a result of an automobile collision with a vehicle driven by an officer of the Texas Department of Public Safety. The trial court denied DPS’s plea to the jurisdiction, which was based on the defense of official immunity for its officer, Sergeant Parker. On appeal, DPS contend

Defendants-appellants John Sutherland, R. Javier Diaz, and Fred Williams (collectively, “the defendants”) appeal from the partial denial of their motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) based on absolute immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, see Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525 1The plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that the Commissioners voted to “terminate”

We are presented with two issues that are the subject of this appeal and cross-appeal: whether the trial court correctly denied a directed verdict for Claire’s on the Locastros’ negligence claim and whether the trial court correctly entered summary judgment for Claire’s on its claim of contractual indemnity. We affirm the trial court’s denial of Claire’s motion for a directed verdict on

Conrad Pierce appeals the trial court's dismissal under the public

duty doctrine of his negligence claims against Yakima County (County). Under the

doctrine, the government may not be sued for negligence unless it breaches a duty

owed particularly to the plaintiff rather than to the public in general. Mr. Pierce

contends the trial court erred in failing to

This is an accelerated appeal from orders denying pleas to the jurisdiction/motions to dismiss predicated on section 101.106(f) of the Texas Tort Claims Act. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.106(f) (West 2005). We reverse and remand these causes to the trial court to address arguments that section 101.106(f) violates the open courts provision of the Texas Constitution and is unconstitut

Plaintiff pro se Vernon J. Leftridge, Jr., who commenced 3 the present action pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and state law 4 against defendants Connecticut State Trooper #1283 ("Trooper 1283" 5 or "the Trooper") and various agencies of the State of Connecticut 6 (the "State"), appeals from a July 2, 2009 order of the United 7 States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Vanessa L. 8 9 1

In this case, we consider whether a public school district has governmental immunity for various claims brought by residents of a subdivision in which the school district is planning to build a student agricultural center. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

BACKGROUND

Santa Fe School District [“the District”] is a public school district located in Santa