{"count":102151,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0yNi4xNTg3Mjgmcz05NTAyNDY4JnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDctMjkmcD0y&q=COMPENSATION+FOR+BREACH+OF+CONDITION&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7318430/in-re-anthem-inc-data-breach-litigation/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litigation","caseNameFull":"IN RE ANTHEM, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION","citation":["162 F. Supp. 3d 953","61 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2062","2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18135","2016 WL 589760"],"citeCount":50,"cluster_id":7318430,"court":"District Court, N.D. California","court_citation_string":"N.D. Cal.","court_id":"cand","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-02-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. 15-MD-02617-LHK","docket_id":64306913,"judge":"Koh","lexisCite":"2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18135","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:36:14.739783Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:43:24.168039Z","score":{"bm25":34.520504}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2498,110017,110993,117928,118142,118319,136991,145730,145875,213504,214902,216101,488820,615541,615727,620819,621934,668233,699264,700478,778579,780272,796813,807798,807936,815415,852526,855046,1118775,1194077,1208595,1318232,1363007,1423405,1429600,1434174,1446183,2086398,2130161,2132730,2175362,2179242,2208798,2230142,2241313,2245744,2280950,2296700,2349159,2393320,2407884,2417779,2471365,2476867,2502735,2509172,2575068,2579621,2594317,2673127,2673158,2717140,2820498,2950925,3150721,5443691,5452500,5452558,5538099,5601333,6923880,6964204,6985107,7008253,7071118,7223353,7225045,7225776,7228407,7228410,7228951,7229277,7230547,7233972,8407824,8408553,8624914,8697399,8703068,8703571,8710399,8714620,8714840,8730085,8741222,8752540],"download_url":null,"id":7236340,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T11:23:25.129650Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:43:24.185749Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n*965ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ANTHEM DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART NON-ANTHEM DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS\nRe: Dkt. No. 410, 413\nLUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge\nPlaintiffs1 bring this putative class action against Anthem, ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7236340],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7321370/in-re-premera-blue-cross-customer-data-security-breach-litigation/","attorney":"Kim D. Stephens, Christopher I. Brain, Chase C. Alvord, and Jason T. Dennett, Tousley BRAin Stephens PLLC, 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200, Seattle, WA 98101; Keith S. Dubanevich, Steve D. Larson, and Mark A. Friel, Stoll Stoll Berne Loeting & Shlachter PC, 209 SW Oak Street, Portland, OR 97204; Ari J. Scharg, Edelson PC, 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300, Chicago, IL 60654; Tina Wolf-son, Ahdoot and Wolfson PC, 1016 Palm Avenue, West Hollywood, CA 90069; and James Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, 1700 K Street NW, Suite 650, Washington, DC 20006. Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs., Daniel R. Warren, Bakerhostetler LLP, 1900 East Ninth Street, Suite 3200, Cleveland, OH 44114; Paul G. Karlsgodt, Bakerhostetler LLP, 1801 California Street, Suite 4400, Denver, CO 80202; and Darin M. Sands, Lane Powell PC, 601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100, Portland, OR 97204. Of Attorneys for Defendant Prem-era Blue Cross.","caseName":"In re Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Security Breach Litigation","caseNameFull":"IN RE: PREMERA BLUE CROSS CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION This Document Relates to All Actions","citation":["198 F. Supp. 3d 1183","2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100198","2016 WL 4107717"],"citeCount":20,"cluster_id":7321370,"court":"District Court, D. Oregon","court_citation_string":"D. Or.","court_id":"ord","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-08-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. 3:15-md-2633-SI","docket_id":64309853,"judge":"Simon","lexisCite":"2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100198","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:37:00.909493Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:52:37.447148Z","score":{"bm25":33.07859}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7239280,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T11:24:36.969833Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:52:37.455940Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS\nMichael H. Simon, United States District Judge\nPlaintiffs bring this putative class action against Defendant Premera Blue Cross (“Premera”), a healthcare benefits provider. On March 17, 2015, Premera publicly disclosed that its computer network had been breached. Plaintiffs allege that this breach compromised the confidential informa","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7239280],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4378732/powell-v-unemployment-compensation-board-of-review/","attorney":"James Patrick Barker, Esq., Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of PA, for Amicus Curiae., Schaun D. Henry, Esq., McNees, Wallace & Nurick, LLC, for Intervenor., Andrew J. Ostrowski, for Possible Intervenor,, Gerard Matthew Mackarevich, Esq., Janet Marie Tarczy, Esq., Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, for Appellant., Gary H. Powell, pro se.","caseName":"Powell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review","caseNameFull":"Gary H. POWELL v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW. Joe Krentzman & Sons, Inc., Intervenor. Appeal Of: Unemployment Compensation Board of Review","citation":["157 A.3d 884","638 Pa. 558","2017 WL 1151101","2017 Pa. LEXIS 672"],"citeCount":7,"cluster_id":4378732,"court":"Supreme Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa.","court_id":"pa","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-03-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Powell, G. v. UCBR, Aplt - No. 38 MAP 2016","docket_id":4638616,"judge":"Saylor, Baer, Todd, Donohue, Dougherty, Wecht, Mundy","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:28:11.531012Z","date_created":"2017-03-28T15:12:43.970824Z","score":{"bm25":31.571638}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1236300,1547679,1896840,1927141,2311394,2384729,2389823,3853148],"download_url":"http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-114-2016mo - 10304286716675280.pdf","id":4155985,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/03/28/powell_g._v._ucbr_aplt.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:36:36.269216Z","date_created":"2017-03-28T15:12:43.977926Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"869cb6fb3aba8095ad215abd3dd20f378c085d85","snippet":" [J-114-2016]\n IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n MIDDLE DISTRICT\n\n SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.\n\n\nGARY H. POWELL : No. 38 MAP 2016\n :\n : Appeal from the Order of the\n v. : Commonwealth Court at No. 1704 CD\n ","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9873646,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:12:21.373370Z","date_created":"2023-09-26T21:42:40.600276Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n*561OPINION\nJUSTICE DOUGHERTY\nWe granted discretionary review to consider whether an attorney who has been suspended from the practice of law by this Court may represent a claimant in unemployment compensation proceedings. A divided three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court determined the claimant is entitled to his choice of representative, even if","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4155985,9873646,9873648,9873650],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9231005/waterbury-v-administrator-unemployment-compensation-act/","attorney":"","caseName":"Waterbury v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act","caseNameFull":"","citation":["216 Conn. App. 717"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9231005,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-11-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC44635","docket_id":66497363,"judge":"Cradle; Suarez; Harper","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:48:11.947379Z","date_created":"2022-11-28T14:01:26.586646Z","score":{"bm25":31.333595}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2555803],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP216/216AP25.pdf","id":9225804,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/11/29/waterbury_v._administrator_unemployment_compensation_act.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:48:11.895056Z","date_created":"2022-11-28T14:01:26.714372Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5c622c005457d96db31a6d7e58e57c192f1f8525","snippet":"***********************************************\n The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Appeal from the decision of the Board of Review of the Employment Security Appeals Division affirming the decision of the appeals referee that the claimant was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven and transferred to the judicial district of Waterbury, where the court, Hon. Joseph H. Pellegrino, judge trial referee, granted the named defendant's motion for judgment and rendered judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed. Daniel J. Foster, corporation counsel, for the appel- lant (plaintiff). Richard T. Sponzo, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, Clare Kindall, solicitor general, and Matthew LaRock, deputy associate attorney general, for the appellee (named defendant).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9225804],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff employer, the city of Waterbury, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its appeal from the decision of the Board of Review of the Employment Security Appeals Division (board), which affirmed the determination by an appeals referee that the defendant claimant was entitled to certain unemployment compensation benefits. The claimant, who had been a firefighter for the plaintiff, was discharged from his employment after testing positive for marijuana in a random drug test. The plaintiff alleged that the positive drug test was in violation of a ''last chance agreement'' that the claimant had previously made with the plaintiff and the claimant's union and other employer policies. The plaintiff contested the claimant's claim for unemployment benefits, asserting that the claimant had been discharged for wilful misconduct under the applicable statute (§ 31-236 (a) (2) (B)). The appeals referee determined that the claimant was a qualifying patient and had been using palliative marijuana prescribed by a physician for post-traumatic stress disorder in accordance with a provision (§ 21a- 408p) of the Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (§ 21a-408 et seq.), and that the plaintiff had failed to allege that the claimant was discharged because he was impaired on the job, in possession of marijuana at work, or selling or trading drugs. The referee further determined that the claimant was not discharged for wilful misconduct because the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the claimant was discharged because he had been disqualified under state or federal law from performing the work for which he was hired as a result of a drug or alcohol testing program mandated by and conducted in accordance with such law. The board affirmed the appeals referee's findings, reasoning that, to the extent the last chance agreement contained a blanket prohibition against the use of palliative marijuana, without specific consideration of the claimant's fitness for duty, the agreement was unreasonable as of the date of the claimant's discharge based on the protections of § 21a-408p (b) (3), which provides that an employer cannot discharge a person solely on the basis of his status as a qualifying patient under the act. The board further concluded that the physician's prescribing palliative marijuana for the claimant's medical condition constituted good cause or a mitigat- ing circumstance for the claimant's violation of the last chance agreement, which prevented the board from finding that he committed wilful misconduct. The plaintiff appealed the board's decision to the trial court, which, having found that the claimant fell under the protections of § 21a-408p (b) (3), granted the motion for judgment of dismissal filed by the named defendant, the Administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act. Held that contrary to the plaintiff's claim, because the legality of the claimant's discharge was not at issue and the issue before the board was whether the claimant's violation of the last chance agreement constituted wilful misconduct that disqualified him from receiving unemployment benefits, § 21a-408p (b) (3) was relevant to the reasonableness of the last chance agreement, on which the plaintiff based its claim that the claimant was discharged for wilful misconduct, and, therefore, the board properly considered it in the resolution of this case; moreover, because it was undisputed that the claimant was a qualifying patient entitled to protection under § 21a-408p (b) (3), the claimant was likewise entitled to protection against employment penal- ties resulting from his legal, off-duty use of medical marijuana; further- more, the board reasonably concluded that, insofar as the last chance agreement operated to allow the plaintiff to terminate the claimant's employment for his palliative use of marijuana, it was unreasonable, and the unreasonable application of the last chance agreement to the claimant's palliative marijuana use foreclosed the possibility that the claimant's employment was terminated for wilful misconduct. Argued September 7—officially released November 29, 2022"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10361236/in-re-petition-of-kent-county-treasurer-for-foreclosure/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re Petition of Kent County Treasurer for Foreclosure","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10361236,"court":"Michigan Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Mich. Ct. App.","court_id":"michctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-03-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"363463","docket_id":69772381,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-03-22T05:08:43.718742Z","date_created":"2025-03-22T05:08:42.587968Z","score":{"bm25":29.443203}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[104786,105428,109382,118098,839205,842954,1697931,2710681,2744477,2744480,2792311,4026764,4239497,7960776,7961077],"download_url":"https://www.courts.michigan.gov/4953c8/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/opinions/final/coa/20250321_c363463_78_363463.opn.pdf","id":10827824,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/03/21/in_re_petition_of_kent_county_treasurer_for_foreclosure.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-03T20:34:17.227332Z","date_created":"2025-03-22T05:08:42.607518Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"22128587394262a8d56b0cccc8cb7b7a8e6c72bd","snippet":" If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to\n revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.\n\n\n\n\n STATE OF MICHIGAN\n\n COURT OF APPEALS\n\n\n\nIn re PETITION OF KENT COUNTY\nTREASURER FOR FORECLOSURE.\n\n\nKENT COUNTY TREASURER, FOR PUBLICATION\n March 21, 2025\n ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10827824],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3008988/miller-v-unemployment-compensation-board-of-review/","attorney":"Julia Simon-Mishel, Staff Attorney, Philadelphia, for petitioner., \"Judith ' M. Gilroy, Assistant \"Counsel, Harrisburg, for respondent.","caseName":"Miller v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review","caseNameFull":"Darrell J. MILLER, Petitioner v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent","citation":["131 A.3d 110","2015 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 561","2015 WL 6473662"],"citeCount":26,"cluster_id":3008988,"court":"Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa. Commw. Ct.","court_id":"pacommwct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-10-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2282 C.D. 2014","docket_id":2866385,"judge":"Leadbetter, Jubelirer, McCullough","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T16:47:52.042725Z","date_created":"2015-10-09T13:38:47.632184Z","score":{"bm25":29.353642}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1535588,2185728,2328428,2446167],"download_url":"http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/2282CD14_10-9-15.pdf","id":3008988,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2015/10/09/d.j._miller_v._ucbr.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T01:58:18.589105Z","date_created":"2015-10-09T13:08:12.834881Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"63e99880e8e975fd997104e9218e672c227dcbfa","snippet":" IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n\nDarrell J. Miller, :\n Petitioner :\n : No. 2282 C.D. 2014\n v. :\n : Submitted: June 12, 2015\nUnemployment Compensation :\nBoard of Review, :\n Respondent ","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9815779,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T22:37:55.296255Z","date_created":"2023-09-01T02:24:23.559515Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION BY\nJudge PATRICIA A. McCullough.1\nDarrell J. Miller. '(Claimant) petitions for review of the November 25, 2014 order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), affirming a referee’s determination that he is ineligible for benefits under section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).2 We vacate and remand.\n","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[8209,8212],"panel_names":["Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter","Patricia A. McCullough"],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3008988,9815779,9815780],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5148656/paolucci-v-unemployment-compensation-board-of-review/","attorney":"Howard A. Rosen, Philadelphia, for petitioner., Maribeth Wilfi-Seibert, Assistant Counsel, Harrisburg, for respondent.","caseName":"Paolucci v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review","caseNameFull":"Elizabeth PAOLUCCI v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW","citation":["118 A.3d 1233","2015 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 263"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5148656,"court":"Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa. Commw. Ct.","court_id":"pacommwct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-06-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":60462663,"judge":"Anne, Brobson, Covey, Jubelirer, Leavitt, McCullough, McGinley, Pellegrini","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:55:51.780376Z","date_created":"2021-09-24T17:09:24.210879Z","score":{"bm25":29.028585}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4969759,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T22:18:48.350166Z","date_created":"2021-09-24T17:09:24.252476Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nDISSENTING OPINION BY\nJudge. ANNE.E. COVEY.\nI respectfully dissent. The Majority’s statement of the issue on page 1234 of its opinion was not raised either explicitly or implicitly by Claimant. Nor did Claimant raise the two issues the Majority sets forth on page 1238.\nMoreover, I strenuously disagree with the Majority dramatically changing well-established precedent and imposing upon emplo","type":"dissent"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4969758,4969759],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10601811/in-re-petition-for-reinstatement-of-edward-raymond-kohout/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Petition for Reinstatement of Edward Raymond Kohout","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10601811,"court":"West Virginia Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"W. Va.","court_id":"wva","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-06-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-1033","docket_id":70500424,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-06-11T06:13:39.613938Z","date_created":"2025-06-10T19:25:58.748444Z","score":{"bm25":28.609138}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[867476,1220582,1240360,1248203,1282015,1282750,1305649,1316472,1316874,1330815,1333327,1336598,1368523,1375068,1375161,1385256,1391177,1399111,1444815,1861079,1919309,3456752,4098629,4281417,4405619,4951719,5045268,5135535,7733106,8051300,8175147,8180114,8181721,8182004,9421867,9561531,9565910,9576214,9581719,9625577,9823838,9879192,9886484],"download_url":"https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2025-06/21-1033-bunn-p.pdf","id":11068399,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/06/10/in_re_petition_for_reinstatement_of_edward_raymond_kohout.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-07T16:38:43.409856Z","date_created":"2025-06-10T19:25:58.760828Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"fa78022e4baa4f8f07361b034b57c18147557362","snippet":" IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA\n FILED\n January 2025 Term\n _____________ June 10, 2025\n released at 3:00 p.m.\n C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK\n ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11068399],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Bar Discipline/Eligibility","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9388565/ex-parte-city-of-muscle-shoals-petition-for-writ-of-mandamus-civil/","attorney":"","caseName":"Ex parte City of Muscle Shoals. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9388565,"court":"Supreme Court of Alabama","court_citation_string":"Ala.","court_id":"ala","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-03-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2022-0524","docket_id":67114885,"judge":"JUSTICE COOK","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:03:34.232080Z","date_created":"2023-03-31T17:02:01.518939Z","score":{"bm25":27.849968}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":3617,"cites":[1095384,1115431,1140507,1149872,1150581,1152799,1622371,1648634,1661787,1706739,1714086,1773094,1776659,1846764,3226393,3226795,3238230,4803806,4870191,7718701],"download_url":"https://acis.alabama.gov/displaydocs.cfm?no=1127263&event=6L00JMPPB","id":9384041,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/03/31/ex_parte_city_of_muscle_shoals._petition_for_writ_of_mandamus_civil.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T05:47:31.251621Z","date_created":"2023-03-31T17:02:01.527390Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ee7a3464ffe287d782b581575672daec3df20849","snippet":"Rel: March 31, 2023\n\n\n\n\nNotice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern\nReporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts,\n300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other\nerrors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.\n\n\n\n\n SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA\n OCTOBER TERM, ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9384041],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6460564/the-socy-for-the-hist-pres-of-the-twenty-sixth-nc-troops/","attorney":"","caseName":"The Soc'y for the Hist. Pres. of the Twenty-Sixth N.C. Troops","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6460564,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-04-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-429","docket_id":63245563,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T09:45:20.907371Z","date_created":"2022-04-19T12:06:34.992752Z","score":{"bm25":27.782097}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=41105","id":6332675,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"bin/2022/04/05/the_socy_for_the_hist._pres._of_the_twenty-sixth_n.c._troops.bin","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T19:26:57.152753Z","date_created":"2022-04-19T12:06:34.994445Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"39023259474e4a048ec44e621cf1e5e710edc668","snippet":" IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n 2022-NCCOA-218\n\n No. COA21-429\n\n Filed 5 April 2022\n\n Buncombe County, No. 21 CVS 1182\n\n THE SOCIETY FOR THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION OF THE TWENTY-\n SIXTH NORTH CAROLINA TROOPS, INC., Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n\n CITY OF ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA, and BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH\n CAROLINA, Defendants.\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6332675],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"motion to dismiss standing breach of contract"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9353268/the-socy-for-the-hist-pres-of-the-twenty-sixth-nc-troops/","attorney":"","caseName":"The Soc'y for the Hist. Pres. of the Twenty-Sixth N.C. Troops","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9353268,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-04-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-429","docket_id":66670493,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T00:54:37.995215Z","date_created":"2022-12-20T14:14:02.062920Z","score":{"bm25":27.732637}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1203337,1242409,1265485,1298587,2502788],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=41105","id":9348740,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/04/05/the_socy_for_the_hist._pres._of_the_twenty-sixth_n.c._troops.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T20:13:46.357767Z","date_created":"2022-12-20T14:14:02.065146Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"41f86086aa03d9a2d2e8fd85a062f77271460092","snippet":" IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n 2022-NCCOA-218\n\n No. COA21-429\n\n Filed 5 April 2022\n\n Buncombe County, No. 21 CVS 1182\n\n THE SOCIETY FOR THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION OF THE TWENTY-\n SIXTH NORTH CAROLINA TROOPS, INC., Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n\n CITY OF ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA, and BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH\n CAROLINA, Defendants.\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9348740],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"motion to dismiss standing breach of contract"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9423091/airlines-for-america-v-city-and-county-of-san-francisco/","attorney":"","caseName":"Airlines for America v. City and County of San Francisco","caseNameFull":"","citation":["78 F.4th 1146"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":9423091,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","court_citation_string":"9th Cir.","court_id":"ca9","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":"2023-04-21","dateFiled":"2023-08-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-15677","docket_id":67239463,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:54:29.949473Z","date_created":"2023-08-29T17:00:56.813337Z","score":{"bm25":27.698942}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[18032,106395,112828,777917,781119,2659300,4190211,4348538,4656626,9015724,9430403,9430599,9435198,9515750,9798614,9842744,9856654,9878811],"download_url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/08/29/22-15677.pdf","id":9771939,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/08/29/airlines_for_america_v._city_and_county_of_san_francisco.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T08:15:31.535095Z","date_created":"2023-08-29T17:00:56.815191Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b3e1c2c4e1892017199aa5f1d83ad8ebe9ae446c","snippet":" FOR PUBLICATION\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nAIRLINES FOR AMERICA, No. 22-15677\n\n Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:21-cv-\n 02341-EMC\n v.\n\nCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN OPINION\nFRANCISCO,\n\n Defendant-Appellee.\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Northern District of California\n Edward M. Chen, District J","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9771939],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2356842/in-re-tjx-companies-retail-security-breach-litigation/","attorney":"Janet G. Abaray, Lopez, Hodes, Restai-no, Milman & Skikos, Cincinnati, OH, William A. Baird, Launa Nicole Everman, Wayne S. Kreger, Milstein Adelman and Kreger LLP, Santa Monica, CA, John Michael Barclay, Richard P. Rouco, Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC, F. Inge Johnstone, The Lamb Firm LLC, Archie C. Lamb, Jr., Law Offices of Archie Lamb LLC, E. Kirk Wood, Birmingham, AL, Elizabeth Rosenberg, Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC, Danielle Disporto, Lester L. Levy, Michele F. Raphael, Wolf Popper LLP, New York, NY, Robert E. Ditzion, Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro, Haber & Urmy, LLP, Patrick J. Sheehan, Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC, Robert T. Naumes, Thornton & Naumes, LLP, Jonathan Shapiro, Stern, Shapiro, Weissberg & Garin, Boston, MA, Ben Barnow, Erich Paul Schork, Barnow & Associates, P.C., Aron David Robinson, Law Office of Aron D. Robinson, Kevin Barry Rogers, Law Offices of Kevin Rogers, John R. Wylie, Futterman, Howard, Watkins, Wylie & Ashley, Chicago, IL, James R. Byrne, Michael G. Caldwell, William H. Champlin, III, William S. Fish, Jr., Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn LLP, Hartford, CT, Benjamin A. Solnit, Tyler Cooper & Alcorn, LLP, New Haven, CT, Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law, Guyte P. McCord, III, McCord, Bubsey & Ketchum, Tallahassee, FL, Michael G. Crow, Crow Law Firm, LLC, Orleans, LA, Gregory Louis Davis, Greg Davis LLC, Montgomery, AL, Michael T. Fantini, Sherrie R. Savett, Jon J. Lambiras, Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Patrick E. Geraghty, Ger-aghty, Dougherty & Edwards, P.A., Ft. Myers, FL, Jordan L. Lurie, Leigh A. Parker, Zev B. Zysman, Weiss & Lurie, Los Angeles, CA, Michael M. Malinowski, Michael M. Malinowski, PLC, Grand Rapids, MI, James R. Patterson, Harrison, Patterson, & O’Connor, San Diego, CA, Ralph K. Phalen, Attorney at Law, Kansas City, MO, Stephen J. Rehfuss, Rehfuss, Liguori, Law Firm, Latham, NY, Louis Cooper Rutland, Jr., Rutland Law Firm LLC, Union Springs, AL, Thomas M. So-bol, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Cambridge, MA, John S. Steward, Bur-stein Law Firm P.C., Clayton, MO, John E. Suthers, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiffs., Richard D. Batchelder, Jr., Brian R. Blais, Seth C. Harrington, Douglas H. Meal, Mark Szpak, Harvey J. Wolkoff, Ropes & Gray LLP, James R. Carroll, Christopher P. Connors, Nicholas I. Leitzes, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Boston, MA, Marcus R. Mumford, Darrel J. Hieber, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Teri-Ann E. Na-gata, Cary B. Lerman, Munger, Tolies & Olson, Los Angeles, CA John E. Goodman, David G. Hymer, Michael R. Pennington, Michael F. Walker, Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, LLP, North Birmingham, AL, Malcome A. Heinicke, Munger, Tolies & Olson, San Francisco, CA, James C. Huc-kaby, Jr., Christian & Small, LLP, John W. Scott, Scott, Dukes & Geisler, P.C., Birmingham, AL, Steven P. Mandell, Man-dell Menkes & Surdyk LLC, Stephen J. Rosenfeld, Mandell Menkes, LLC, Chicago, IL, C. Bradford Marsh, Swift, Currie, McGhee & Heirs, Atlanta, GA, Margaret Diane Mathews, Akerman, Senterfitt, Tampa, FL John Michael Pickett, Young Pickett & Lee, Texarkana, TX, Harry Rosenberg, Phelps & Dunbar, LLP, New Orleans, LA Richard J.J. Scarola, Alexander Zubatov, Scarola Ellis LLP, William I. Sussman, Reboul, MacMurray, Hewitt, Maynard & Kristol New York, NY, Robert N. Webner, Vorys Sater Seymour, and Pease LLP, Columbus, OH, William Breck Weigel, Yorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP, Cincinnati, OH, Brant M. Laue, Kansas City, MO, for Defendants., William Kenneth C. Dippel, Dippel & Davis, Dallas, TX, for Movant., Margaret M. Pinkham, Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP, Paul W. Shaw, Brown, Rudnick, Boston, MA, for Interested Parties.","caseName":"In Re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litigation","caseNameFull":"In Re TJX COMPANIES RETAIL SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION","citation":["584 F. Supp. 2d 395","2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94410","2008 WL 4786658"],"citeCount":16,"cluster_id":2356842,"court":"District Court, D. Massachusetts","court_citation_string":"D. Mass.","court_id":"mad","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2008-11-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action 07-10162-WGY","docket_id":2257270,"judge":"Young","lexisCite":"2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94410","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T10:56:32.672232Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T22:57:46.874580Z","score":{"bm25":27.698606}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":3588,"cites":[74022,110180,198332,318518,461584,555766,591130,697253,748411,751856,768304,796443,1558001,1736898,2360928,2457892],"download_url":null,"id":2356842,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T19:04:53.563549Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:13:55.681065Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"336f197696dceff99f7a9e1d09cb808b98085926","snippet":"\n(2008)\nIn re TJX COMPANIES RETAIL SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION.\nCivil Action No. 07-10162-WGY.\nUnited States District Court, D. Massachusetts.\nNovember 3, 2008.\n\nMEMORANDUM AND ORDER\nYOUNG, District Judge.\nOn January 17, 2007, TJX Companies, Inc. (\"TJX\") publicly announced that hackers had compromised its computer systems. See Joseph Perei","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2356842],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8731416/in-re-sony-gaming-networks-customer-data-security-breach-litigation/","attorney":"Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates PC, Chicago, IL, Brian Russell Strange, Strange & Carpenter, Lionel Z. Glancy, Marc L. Godino, Michael M. Goldberg, Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, Jon Anders Tostrud, Tostrud Law Group PC, Sandra Watson Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Robert R. Henss-ler, Jr., Douglas R. Britton, Rachel L. Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Timothy Gordon Blood, Thomas Joseph O’Reardon, II, Blood Hurst & O’Reardon LLP, Mark A. Maasch Turner and Maasch, Gayle M. Blatt, Casey, Gerry, Schenk, Francavilla, Blatt & Penfield LLP, San Diego, CA, Lance A. Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Miami, FL, Seth R. Gassman, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Brian Philip Murray, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Gregory Bradley Linkh, Murray Frank LLP, Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC, Patrick J. Sheehan, Whatley Kallas, LLC, Shujah Ahmad Awan, Shujah Awan, Lester L. Levy, Wolf Popper, Curtis V. Trinko, Jennifer Elizabeth Traystman, Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, New York, NY, James D. Hoey, III, The Hoey Law Firm, La Jolla, CA, William T. Crowder, Scott E. Poynter, Emerson Poynter LLP, Little Rock, AR, Thomas Gourrier Bousquet, Bousquet Law, P.C., Muhammad Suleiman Aziz, Abraham Watkins Nichols Sorrels and Friend, Houston, TX, Caleb L.H. Marker, Christopher Paul Ridout, Ridout Lyon and Ottoson LLP, Devon M. Lyon, Ridout & Lyon, LLP, Long Beach, CA, Gillian L. Wade, Sara Dawn Avila, Mark Alan Milstein, Milstein Adelman LLP, Santa Monica, CA, Mark Schlachet, Law Offices of Mark Schlachet, Cleveland, OH, Paul C. Whalen, Paul C. Whalen, Esq., Manhasset, NY, Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Jennifer L. Crose, Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Reserve, LA, Matthew B. Moreland, Matthew B. Moreland, Attorney at Law, Allan Kanner, Kanner & Whiteley, LLC, New Orleans, LA, David I. Pankin, Brooklyn, NY, Thomas D. Mauriello, Mauriello Law Firm APC, San Clemente, CA, for Plaintiff., Amanda Catherine Fitzsimmons, William S. Boggs, DLA Piper LLP, San Diego, CA, David Alan Walton, Beirne Maynard et ah, Houston, TX, Douglas H. Meal, Harvey J. Wolkoff, Mark P. Szpak, Robert B. Gordon, Ropes and Gray, Boston, MA, Karin Pagnanelli, Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Morris Weinberg, Jr., Zuckerman Spaeder, Tampa, FL, Rocky C. Tsai, Ropes & Gray LLP, Thad A. Davis, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.","caseName":"In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Security Breach Litigation","caseNameFull":"In re SONY GAMING NETWORKS AND CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION","citation":["996 F. Supp. 2d 942","82 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 493","2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7353","2014 WL 223677"],"citeCount":83,"cluster_id":8731416,"court":"District Court, S.D. California","court_citation_string":"S.D. Cal.","court_id":"casd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-01-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"MDL No. 11md2258 AJB (MDD)","docket_id":65997340,"judge":"Battaglia","lexisCite":"2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7353","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:13:20.551953Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T07:36:59.937880Z","score":{"bm25":27.426466}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[23180,89343,103402,103542,106497,110831,112418,112747,131163,145730,145875,147490,181056,202048,213297,228273,320424,338455,377212,495007,504663,516210,540085,543065,570028,618713,620819,622464,706088,715714,731224,743520,764706,770682,774954,775863,780573,784062,791014,791494,794894,795139,796813,800566,807936,821306,868499,894583,1035747,1043371,1088528,1098007,1126404,1133350,1136033,1154737,1158333,1160919,1208595,1218182,1234659,1243130,1248659,1255911,1283492,1349036,1354905,1363007,1371211,1378563,1385469,1436480,1446183,1457289,1557045,1579082,1585743,1593644,1598440,1636421,1639561,1657768,1676192,1691606,1719172,1755829,1773352,1773536,1786855,1788498,1801796,1811136,1821520,1827370,1835060,1843485,1873814,1900333,1910285,1917919,1953864,1975379,1981023,2007829,2008816,2008842,2022850,2046989,2086398,2088062,2102557,2131112,2132316,2139353,2147770,2164573,2177153,2180229,2219291,2222118,2228955,2241313,2246518,2246913,2248440,2255963,2263223,2264898,2267506,2281968,2282473,2283365,2285977,2287828,2288774,2289441,2290504,2291245,2291564,2293551,2325843,2328571,2330998,2350076,2350237,2361131,2367160,2396042,2409074,2426441,2426591,2429380,2432554,2437814,2444475,2448011,2453926,2462869,2462991,2472463,2475102,2475765,2477879,2484227,2520008,2520475,2522095,2539203,2540812,2542208,2564394,2623151,2624588,2638741,2967141,4804963,5113529,5452558,5731656,5949468,6174129,6207030,6214497,6450676,6452504,6453444,6454218,6458628,6460220,6462549,6463382,6762006,6789252,6964204,6998032,7016609,7121488,8051854,8051909,8052385,8052507,8053275,8053446,8409947,8624914,8695635,8696492,8697543,8698798,8699634,8699806,8699825,8700868,8700870,8703815,8706140,8707466,8709363,8710005,8710883,8711234,8735280,8744780,8757805,8761715,8764025,8766701,8767726,8895584,8898139,8950166,9000003,9322471,9685293],"download_url":null,"id":8714620,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T18:30:33.054031Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T07:36:59.954331Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT\nANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA, District Judge.\nThis action arises out of a criminal intrusion into a computer network system used to provide online gaming and Internet connectivity via an individual’s gaming console or personal computer. Plaintiffs, a nationwide putative consumer clas","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8714620],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6316689/new-york-state-workers-compensation-board-v-compensation-risk-managers/","attorney":"APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf, Cunningham & Coppola LLC, Buffalo (Daniel E. Sarzynski, Matthew C. Lenahan and Carolyn E. Kirchberger of counsel), for plaintiff., John H. Snyder, PLLC, New York City {John H. Snyder and Abaigeal L. Van Deerlin of counsel), for HITNY trustees, defendants., Vedder Price, P.C., New York City {John H. Eickemeyer, Roy Salins and Daniel Green of counsel), for UHY, LLP, defendant.","caseName":"New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Compensation Risk Managers, LLC","caseNameFull":"New York State Workers' Compensation Board, in its Capacity as the Governmental Entity Charged with Administration of the Workers' Compensation Law and Attendant Regulations, and in its Capacity as the Successor in Interest to the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York and Others v. Compensation Risk Managers, LLC, Defendants New York State Workers' Compensation Board, in its Capacity as the Governmental Agency Charged with Administration of the Workers' Compensation Law and Attendant Regulations, and in its Capacity as the Successor in Interest to the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York and Others v. SGRISK, LLC, Defendants New York State Workers' Compensation Board, in its Capacity as the Governmental Agency Charged with Administration of the Workers' Compensation Law and Attendant Regulations, and in its Capacity as the Successor in Interest to the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York, and as Assignee of Certain Claims of Certain Former Members of the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York v. Compensation Risk Managers, LLC","citation":["51 Misc. 3d 683","27 N.Y.S.3d 822"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6316689,"court":"New York Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"N.Y. Sup. Ct.","court_id":"nysupct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-02-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62947850,"judge":"Platkin","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T09:06:23.638817Z","date_created":"2022-02-05T19:54:22.915851Z","score":{"bm25":27.391924}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2232752,2590614,3611086,3626560,5539281,5683718,5927299],"download_url":null,"id":6185128,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T18:48:50.900942Z","date_created":"2022-02-05T19:54:22.933209Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION OF THE COURT\nRichard M. Platkin, J.\nThe above-captioned actions are subject to coordination orders issued by the Litigation Coordinating Panel. The State of New York Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB), which is the plaintiff in all three actions, moves for leave to amend its complaints, principally in relation to alleging claims for implied indemnification.\nBackground\n","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6185128],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8720378/in-re-sony-gaming-networks-customer-data-security-breach-litigation/","attorney":"Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates PC, Bradley M. Baglien, Christopher L. Dore, Jay Edelson, Edelson McGuire LLC, Michael J. Aschenbrener, Aschenbrener Law P.C., Joseph J. Siprut, Siprut PC, Chicago, IL, Brian Russell Strange, Strange & Carpenter, Lionel Z. Glancy, Marc L. Godino, Michael M Goldberg, Glancy, Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Jon Anders Tostrud, Tostrud Law Group PC, Sandra Watson Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Justin B. Farar, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Robert R. Ahdoot, Theodore Walter Maya, Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot & Wolfson APC, David E. Azar, Mil-berg LLP, Jeff S. Westerman, Westerman Law Corp., David E. Bower, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Raul Perez, Matthew T. Theriault, Initiative Legal Group APC, David Lishian Cheng, Miriam L. Schimmel, Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC, Los Angeles, CA, Robert R. Henssler, Jr., Douglas R. Britton, Rachel L. Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Timothy Gordon Blood, Thomas Joseph O’Reardon, II, Blood Hurst & O’Reardon LLP, John Miller Turner, III, Mark A. Maasch, Turner and Maasch, Gayle M. Blatt, Casey, Gerry, Schenk, Francavilla, Blatt & Penfield LLP, Mark Alan Milstein, Lincoln Gustafson and Cercos, Betsy Carol Manifold, Francis Michael Gregorek, Francis Michael Gregorek, Patrick Hugh Moran, Radíele R. Rickert, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLP, William James Doyle, II, Doyle Lowther LLP, Daniel Roman Tamez, Gnau & Tamez Law Group, LLP, San Diego, CA, Lance A. Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Miami, FL, Seth R. Gassman, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Brian Philip Murray, Gregory Bradley Linkh, Murray Frank LLP, Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC, Patrick J. Sheehan, Whatley Kallas, LLC, Shujah Ahmad Awan, Shujah Awan, Lester L. Levy, Wolf Popper, Curtis V. Trinko, Jennifer Elizabeth Traystman, Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, Scott A. Bursor, Bursor & Fisher, PA, Bruce E. Gerstein, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP, Scott W. Fisher, Garwin Bronzaft Gerstein & Fisher LLP, Ted Trief, Trief & Oik, New York, NY, James D. Hoey, III, The Hoey Law Firm, La Jolla, CA, Thomas Gourrier Bousquet, Bousquet Law, P.C., Muhammad Suleiman Aziz, Abraham Watkins Nichols Sorrels and Friend, Cory S. Fein, Cynthia B. Chapman, Michael A. Caddell, Caddell & Chapman, Houston, TX, Caleb L.H. Marker, Christopher Paul Ridout, Devon M. Lyon, Ridout & Lyon, LLP, Long Beach, CA, Gillian L. Wade, Sara Dawn Avila, Milstein Adelman LLP, Santa Monica, CA, Mark Sehlachet, Law Offices of Mark Sehlachet, Cleveland, OH, Paul C. Whalen, Paul C. Whalen, Esq., Manhasset, NY, Christopher D. Jennings, John G. Emerson, Jr., Scott E. Poynter, William T. Crowder, Emerson Poynter LLP, Little Rock, AR, David I. Pankin, Brooklyn, NY, Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Jennifer L. Crose, Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Reserve, LA, Matthew B. Moreland, Matthew B. Moreland, Attorney at Law, Allan Kanner, Kanner & Whiteley, LLC, New Orleans, LA, Thomas D. Mauriello, Mauriello Law Firm APC, San Clemente, CA, Laurence D. King, Linda M. Fong, Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Joshua Caleb Ezrin, Kevin Lee Thomason, William M. Audet, Audet & Partners LLP, J. Kirk Boyd, Public Interest Lawyers Group, Michael F. Ram, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, Mark E. Burton, Jr., Hersh and Hersh, Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, Stuart George Gross, Gross Law, Aaron Hillel Darsky, Schubert and Reed, Josef D. Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, PC, Mark F. Anderson Anderson, Ogilvie & Brewer LLP, San Francisco, CA, Sean Patrick Reis, Edelson McGuire LLP, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, Todd Goldberg, Goldfarb Branham LLP, Jeremy Reade Wilson, Wilson Trosclair & Lovins, Kenneth P. Trosclair, Nabil Majed Nachawati, II, Fears Nachawati Law Firm, Dallas, TX, Robert K. Shelquist, Loekridge Grindal Ñauen P.L.L.P., Executive Committee Member, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, Curtis Brooks Cutter, John R. Parker, Jr., Stuart C. Talley, William Alter Kershaw, Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP, Sacramento, CA, Ira Perry Rothken, Jared Robinson Smith, Rothken Law Firm, Novato, CA, Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Sarah N. Westcot, Bursor & Fisher, PA, Walnut Creek, CA, Cullin Avram O’Brien, Mark Jeffrey Dearman, Paul J. Geller, Stuart A. Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Boca Raton, FL, Mark S. Reich, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, Samuel H. Rudman, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins, Melville, NY, Brian W. Smith, Smith Vanture & Rivera LLP, West Palm Beach, FL, Gerald H. Clark, Clark Law Firm, West Long Branch, NJ, Brian Scott Cohen, Cohen Law Group, P.C., Greenwich, CT, Kenneth G. Gilman, Gilman and Pastor, LLP, Wareham, MA, Michele Monique Desoer, Wites & Kapetan P.A., Reginald Terrell, The Terrell Law Group, Oakland, CA, Richard Alan Proaps, Law Offices of Richard A. Proaps, Fair Oaks, CA, David Pastor, Pastor Law Office, LLP, Gary Klein, Shennan Kavanagh, Klein Kavanagh Costello, LLP, Boston, MA, Seth Michael Lehrman, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, FL, Mark A. Chavez, Nance Felice Becker, Chavez and Gertler LLP, Mill Valley, CA, Peter S. Pearlman, Cohn Lifland Pearlman Hermann & Knopf LLP, Saddle Brook, NJ, Donald Chidi Amamgbo, Esq., Amamgbo & Associates, Culver City, CA, David M. Honigman, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, PC, Troy, MI, Jeffrey A. Hank, East Lansing, MI, Nancy L. Fine-man, Carr McClellan Ingersoll Thompson and Horn, Steven Noel Williams, Victor Santiago Elias, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Burlingame, CA, Irwin Levin, Lynn A. Toops, Richard E. Shevitz, Cohen and Malad LLP, Richard P. Batesky, Batesky Law Office, Indianapolis, IN, Craig Frank Holthaus, John W. DeGravelles, DeGravelles, Palmintier, Holthaus & Fruge, Gerald J. Asay, Scott E. Frazier, Kracht & Frazier, LLP, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiffs., Amanda Catherine Fitzsimmons, William S. Boggs, DLA Piper LLP, San Diego, CA, David Alan Walton, Beirne Maynard et al., Houston, TX, Douglas H. Meal, Harvey J. Wolkoff, Robert B. Gordon, Mark P. Szpak, Ropes & Gray, LLP, Boston, MA, Karin Pagnanelli, Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Morris Weinberg, Jr., Zuckerman Spaeder, Tampa, FL, Rocky C. Tsai, Ropes & Gray LLP, Thad A. Davis, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.","caseName":"In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Security Breach Litigation","caseNameFull":"In re SONY GAMING NETWORKS AND CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION","citation":["903 F. Supp. 2d 942","2012 WL 4849054","2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146971"],"citeCount":34,"cluster_id":8720378,"court":"District Court, S.D. California","court_citation_string":"S.D. Cal.","court_id":"casd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-10-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"MDL No. 11md2258 AJB (MDD); Civil Case Nos. 11cv2119, 11cv2120","docket_id":65986299,"judge":"Battaglia","lexisCite":"2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146971","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:08:21.811899Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T06:00:42.247060Z","score":{"bm25":26.870985}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[302,108906,109301,109462,110831,110916,112747,117845,118329,130154,145730,145875,146183,147490,181056,181094,222089,223712,236312,508254,615727,618713,620819,628124,698448,706088,715714,784326,793908,797760,1160919,1185687,1204215,1208595,1218182,1225867,1243130,1255911,1263343,1367252,1392113,1426045,1446183,1801796,2107989,2119992,2125280,2153681,2175044,2208540,2243821,2244000,2244875,2248440,2254382,2255963,2256024,2256803,2257151,2260165,2261203,2274540,2276765,2278412,2278810,2283365,2294215,2301782,2306917,2317186,2396042,2407884,2432341,2469100,2469729,2474336,2539203,2539246,2578378,2607512,2620886,2623151,2624588,2638741,3037685,5433426,5452558,6454218,6938243,6964204,6969958,6985107,6987266,6998020,7016609,8407824,8408069,8408936,8761716,9685293],"download_url":null,"id":8703571,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T03:56:13.258929Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T06:00:42.259119Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT\nANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA, District Judge.\nPresently before the Court are (1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint; and (2) Defendants’ Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice. [Doc. 94.] Plaintiffs filed an opposition, [Doc. No. 107], and Defendants fi","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8703571],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4725489/in-re-adoption-of-rules-for-continuing-judicial-education/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Adoption of Rules for Continuing Judicial Education","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4725489,"court":"Supreme Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa.","court_id":"pa","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-02-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"827 Supreme Court Rules","docket_id":16819178,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:07:50.964007Z","date_created":"2020-02-07T20:09:21.540349Z","score":{"bm25":26.393328}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/Attachment - 10432842894337411.pdf","id":4505816,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/02/07/in_re_adoption_of_rules_for_continuing_judicial_education_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T18:39:21.422092Z","date_created":"2020-02-07T20:09:21.543844Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"fd41d2aaeff3741781c2cf48e4459d344ae5dfc2","snippet":" PENNSYLVANIA RULES FOR CONTINUING JUDICIAL EDUCATION\n\n\nRule 101. Title and Citation\nRule 102. General\n\nRule 201. Continuing Judicial Education Board of Judges\nRule 202. Composition and Terms of the Board\nRule 203. Compensation, Expenses, and Immunity\nRule 204. Powers and Duties of the Board\nRule 205. Quorum and Votes\nRule 206. Confidentiality\n\nRule 301. Continuing Judicial Education Requirement\nRule 302. Course Attendance and Alternatives\nRule 303. Standards for Approved Courses or Acti","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4505816],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4458316/new-york-state-workers-compensation-bd-v-compensation-risk-mgrs-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Compensation Risk Mgrs., LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4458316,"court":"New York Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"N.Y. Sup. Ct.","court_id":"nysupct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-12-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2017 NYSlipOp 51946(U)","docket_id":6258206,"judge":"Platkin","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-24T16:41:47.314890Z","date_created":"2018-01-10T15:24:11.016161Z","score":{"bm25":26.383562}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_51946.htm","id":4235569,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"wpd/2017/12/14/new_york_state_workers_compensation_bd._v._compensation_risk_mgrs._llc_3.wpd","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:31:27.091074Z","date_created":"2018-01-10T15:24:11.026025Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"26bb3310a4ee93609826c17e0559c534c5ea00ec","snippet":"\r\n\nNew York State Workers' Compensation Board, in its capacity as the governmental entity charged with administration of the Workers' Compensation Law and attendant regulations, and in its capacity as the successor in interest to THE HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY TRUST OF NEW YORK, THE WHOLESALE AND RETAIL WORKERS' COMPENSATION TRUST OF NEW YORK, TRANSPORTATION IN","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_51946.htm","id":4235331,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"wpd/2017/12/14/new_york_state_workers_compensation_bd._v._compensation_risk_mgrs._llc_1.wpd","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-10T06:33:11.206322Z","date_created":"2018-01-09T20:23:49.714756Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"219a68226138a5d3c8381c5ed03d54025f0f2979","snippet":"\r\n\nNew York State Workers' Compensation Board, in its capacity as the governmental entity charged with administration of the Workers' Compensation Law and attendant regulations, and in its capacity as the successor in interest to THE HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY TRUST OF NEW YORK, THE WHOLESALE AND RETAIL WORKERS' COMPENSATION TRUST OF NEW YORK, TRANSPORTATION IN","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4235331,4235569],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4336096/state-of-new-york-workers-compensation-board-v-wang/","attorney":"APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Miranda Sambursky Slone Sklarin Verveniotis LLP, Mineóla (.Maurizio Savoiardo of counsel), for Program Risk Management, Inc. and others, appellants-respondents., Denlea & Carton LLP, White Plains (Peter N. Freiberg of counsel), for Albert Johansmeyer and another, appellants-respondents., Phillips Lytle LLP, Buffalo (Craig R. Bucki of counsel), for Todd Brason and others, appellants-respondents., Corrigan, McCoy & Bush, PLLC, Rensselaer (Scott W. Bush of counsel), for Joel Hodes, appellant-respondent., Hinman Straub PC, Albany (