ORDER WILSON, District Judge. On May 25, 2010, I accepted this case on a transfer from the Western District of Arkansas, after the judges in that district recused. Early in the case I noted that it appeared to be as hairy as the Fouke Monster. 1 In preparing for the preliminary injunction hearing, I reviewed, among other things, the administrative record consisting of thousands of pages, along with exhibits. The parties filed numerous pleadings and briefs consisting of several hundred...
OPINION AND ORDER J. LEON HOLMES, District Judge. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., and Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc. (collectively "Mitsubishi"), allege that General Electric Company has violated the antitrust laws by monopolizing and attempting to monopolize the market in the United States for variable speed wind turbines in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, GE has monopolized and attempted to monopolize the market by obtaining patents by...
ORDER JIMM LARRY HENDREN, Chief Judge. Petitioner Andrew Sasser ("Sasser"), sentenced to death for murder and confined at the Maximum Security Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC"), seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Pet., ECF No. 48. After careful consideration, and for the reasons that follow, Sasser's remaining claim, that he is mentally retarded and thus ineligible for the...
MEMORANDUM OPINION HARRY F. BARNES, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Universal Health Services, Inc.'s ("UHS") Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 106). Following the filing of UHS's initial Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 52), Plaintiff Texarkana Behavioral Associates, L.C. ("TBA") moved to amend its complaint. (Doc. 82). Over UHS's opposition, the Court granted the motion to amend (Doc. 87), and TBA filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 89). Because the complaint had...
MEMORANDUM OPINION HARRY F. BARNES, District Judge. Before the Court is a Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Separate Defendant Pittman Nursery Corporation. (Doc. 69). Plaintiffs have not responded, and the time for response has passed. 1 The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration. I. BACKGROUND In this action, Plaintiffs were migrant agricultural workers employed by Pittman Nursery Corporation for seasonal work. They allege that a former Pittman Nursery...
