1247 search results for query *

Summary: 605 F. Supp. Plaintiffs, participants in the Jim Dandy Company Retirement Plan for Non-Union Employees (the Plan), seek under § 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), to recover lump sum payments in satisfaction of their vested and nonforfeitable right to an accrued benefit under the Plan and to recover surplus assets that will remain after payment of all Plan liabilities. The defendants are Savannah Foods & Industries, Inc. (SFI), more.

Summary: 244 F. Supp. The court in Russell v. Commissioner of Social Security, 20 F. Supp. See Daniels v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 1129, 1131 (10th Cir.1998) (held that when the passage of a *1284 few days or months would cause a shift in the results of the disability determination a borderline age situation exists); Kane v. Heckler, 776 F.2d 1130 (3rd Cir.1985) (Court held that it would not mechanically apply grids set in § 404.1563(a) in borderline age situations) (48 days before next age category within more.

Summary: 611 F. Supp. One only has to compare Pace v. Southern Railway System, 701 F.2d 1383 (11th Cir.1983); Simmons v. McGuffey Nursing Home, Inc., 619 F.2d 369 (5th Cir.1980); and similar cases with Buckley v. Hospital Corp. of America, Inc., 758 *643 F.2d 1525 and Goldstein v. Manhattan Industries, Inc., 758 F.2d 1435 (11th Cir.1985) to decide that the issue involves a continuum of subjective assessments. See Bell v. B'ham Linen, 715 F.2d 1552 (11th Cir. The court will not take the approach more.

Summary: 732 F. Supp. On January 4, 1990, this court entered an order requiring the United States to show cause by January 19, 1990, if it could do so, why the title issue as to each of the four separate parcels should not be tried separately pursuant to the jury demands filed by the several claimants, that is, "after the United States has put on its evidence at a non-jury trial proving the existence of `probable cause.'" On February 20, 1990, not only did the United States dismiss Parcel 3 and move for more.

Summary: 673 F. Supp. 430 (1987) Daniel HARRELL, James Leach, and L.C. Nix, Plaintiffs, Wren Smitherman, et al., Plaintiffs-Intervenors, v. UNIVERSITY OF MONTEVALLO, et al., Defendants. In this aspect of the case, plaintiffs Katherine Bell, Ida S. White, Arlinda Tripp, Loretta Tate, Dorthola Nicks, Willie McCary, Minnie Brazzell, Curlie S. Moore, L.C. Nix and Gregory Cox claim that they were terminated from their employment with the defendant University of Montevallo because of their race.Plaintiffs Ida more.

Summary: 665 F. Supp. The final bench hearing in the above entitled Title VII pregnancy discrimination action brought by plaintiff Teresa Todhunter against the defendant Cullman County Commission on Education came on to be heard at the Federal Courthouse in Huntsville, Alabama on July 13th and 14th, 1987. Prior to her employment as an elementary teacher by the Cullman County Commission on Education she was employed as a kindergarten teacher by a private kindergarten school in Arab, Alabama from February more.

Summary: 221 F. Supp. *1266 *1267 Henry F. Sherrod, III, Henry F. Sherrod, III, P.C., Florence, AL, for plaintiff. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 254, 106 S. Ct. 2505; Cottle v. Storer Communication, Inc., 849 F.2d 570, 575 (11th Cir.1988). Graham, 193 F.3d at 1282 (quoting Brown v. City of Clewiston, 848 F.2d 1534, 1540 n. 12 (11th Cir.1988). 2d 433 (1979); see also Shows v. Morgan, 40 F. Supp. 826 F.2d 1030, 1032 (11th Cir.1987) (citation omitted); see also Shows, 40 F.Supp.2d at 1355; Ross v. State of Alabama, more.

Summary: 840 F. Supp. William F. Gardner, R. Taylor Abbot, Jr., Cabaniss Johnston Gardner Dumas & O'Neal, Birmingham, AL, for defendants. [1] *856 The plaintiffs Langston and Simmons were terminated from their employment with the defendant Carraway on January 31, 1992 as a part of a RIF.[2] At the time of his termination, Mr. Simmons held the position of Director of the Central Services Department (Simmons depo., p. 13) and also exercised top supervisory functions in the patient transportation more.

Summary: 434 F. Supp. Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir.1983). Pope v. Shalala, 998 F.2d 473, 477 (7th Cir.1993); accord McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1030 (11th Cir.1986). "Foote, at 1560 (quoting Holt v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 1221, 1223 (11th Cir.1991). Elam v. Railroad Retirement Bd., 921 F.2d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir.1991)(parenthetical information omitted)(emphasis added). Hale v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1012 (11th Cir.1987). MacGregor, 786 F.2d at 1053; Elam, 921 F.2d at 1216. See more.

Summary: 347 B.R. 776 (2006) In re George William SANDERS, Tiffany Sanders, Debtors. The State of Alabama Department of Human Resources, Appellant, v. George William Sanders Tiffany Sanders Philip Geddes, Chapter 13 Trustee, Appellees. The debtors, George William Sanders and wife Danielle Sanders, field a joint Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on January 16, 2006. This arrearage was being paid through payroll deduction from debtor George Sanders at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed and the more.

Summary: (2008) Saul CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CINRAM INTERNATIONAL, INC.; Cinram, Inc.; Tri Staffing; Blair Staffing and Logistics; and The Job Center, Defendants. For the reasons explained herein, the motions of Cinram, Inc., LyonsHR, Inc., and Blair Staffing, Inc., ("Movants") for a More Definite Statement and for an Order requiring the Plaintiff to file a RICO Case Statement are due to be GRANTED. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Plaintiff, more.

Summary: 913 F. Supp. This case involves a claim by plaintiff, SouthTrust Corporation ("SouthTrust"), that the defendants, Plus Systems, Inc., Alabama Network, Inc., ("Alert") and Southeast Switch, Inc., ("Honor") violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, causing plaintiff damages. The plaintiff alleges that the provision in its contract with the defendants prohibiting the levying of a surcharge for automated teller machine (ATM) transactions performed at SouthTrust ATMs by non-SouthTrust customers is more.

Summary: 792 F. Supp. 1224 (1992) MUSCLE SHOALS ASSOCIATES, LTD., an Alabama limited partnership, and Alabama Realty Associates, Ltd., an Alabama limited partnership, Plaintiffs, v. MHF INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant. The above entitled civil action was commenced on May 28, 1992 in this Court by plaintiffs Muscle Shoals Associates, Ltd., an Alabama limited partnership, and Alabama Realty Associates, Ltd., an Alabama limited partnership, against defendant MHF Insurance Agency, more.

Summary: 403 F. Supp. One Court speaking to the point of who is a "responsible person" has said: *667 "The person responsible for the payment of taxes under §§ 6671 and 6672 is the person who `had the final word as to what bills should or should not be paid, and when,' Wilson v. United States, 250 F.2d 312, 316 (9th Cir.

Summary: 430 F. Supp. The gravamen of the complaint concerns the construction by this court of the completed operations and products liability portion in coverage thereunder of a policy of liability insurance issued to Mobil Mart, Inc., formerly doing business as Diamond Housing Mobile Homes, by Cotton States Insurance Company of Atlanta, Georgia, and referred to more specifically as Policy No. As a result of the fire damage to their mobile home, Eddie Hill and Brenda Hill filed suit on April 11, 1975, more.

Summary: 494 F. Supp. ISCOR claims that plaintiff has failed to state a claim *332 upon which relief can be granted and that this court lacks jurisdiction over the person of this defendant. Bickham v. Miller, 584 F.2d 736 (5th Cir. Gossett v. Du-Ra-Kel Corporation, 569 F.2d 869 (5th Cir. United States v. Hodnett, 347 F. Supp. He cannot meet his burden by stating general assertions or legal conclusions, Liberty Leasing Co., Inc. v. Hillsum Sales Corp., 380 F.2d 1013 (5th Cir. DeBardeleben v. Cummings, more.

Summary: 50 B.R. 742 (1985) In re Eliseo J. MATOS and Margarette W. Matos, Debtors. Eliseo J. MATOS and Margarette W. Matos, Appellants, v. GWINNETT BANK & TRUST CO., Appellee. On November 1, 1984, the Bankruptcy Court held that the mortgage involved herein, although recorded in violation of Ala.Code § 35-4-110 (1975), is valid against the debtors-in-possession. The Debtors-in-Possession/Appellants are guarantors on a note held by the Appellee which is secured by a mortgage on real estate. The Debtors, more.

Summary: 761 F. Supp. U.S. Aviation Underwriters, Inc. v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 296 F. Supp. See, e.g., E.E.O.C. v. Agro Distrib., LLC, 555 F.3d 462, 468 (5th Cir.2009) (finding that the EEOC did not make its mandatory good faith effort at conciliation where it took an "all-or-nothing approach" and ignored any attempt by the defendant to negotiate or respond). See, e.g., E.E.O.C. v. Keco Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d 1097, 1102 (6th Cir.1984) ("The district court should only determine whether the EEOC more.

Summary: 288 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (2003) John PRITCHETT, Plaintiff, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. The plaintiff, John Pritchett, brings this action pursuant to the provisions of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final adverse decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the Commissioner) denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB), a Period of Disability (POD) more.