Cases

NUMBER 13-08-00081-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG _________________________

*560 BAILEY ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge. This is an appeal in a Section 1983 civil rights class action on behalf of plaintiffs’ counsel, whose sought lodestar figure was reduced by the court by some sixty percent. Counsel has been criticized by defendants for charging high rates for unimportant work, an

*205OPINION OF THE COURT Per Curiam. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on June 19, 2002. On October 28, 2009, respondent was convicted after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (District Court) of engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 USC § 371

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated March 18, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict finding the defendants Robert J. Licatesi, Jr., and Joseph Schroeder 100% at fault in the happening of the accident, and finding the defendants Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., and Andino D’Sarrono not at fault, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against Ryder Truc

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RICHARD J. HOLWELL, District Judge. Plaintiffs commenced this action, which claims violations of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Administrative Code, on March 22, 2007. Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of two attempts to rent an apartment at 15 Broad Street in New York City, which they all

Cowin, J. The plaintiff, Elizabeth Mancuso, claims that she has a property interest in participating in interscholastic athletics as a member of her high school swim team. She contends that the defendant Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA) deprived her of that property interest without due process, and that such deprivation entitles her to relief under the Federal and State civil rights laws. The plaintiff

MOTZ, Circuit Judge, dissenting: The purpose of the requirement in Rule 41(a)(1)(h) that the plaintiff obtain the defendant’s consent to dismissal is to protect defendants from arbitrary actions by plaintiffs. In view of the fact that in this case it is uncontroverted that both the plaintiffs and the defendants agreed in 1991 that the case should and would be dismissed and that the plaintiffs filed with the court

232 Cal.App.3d 88 (1991) 283 Cal. Rptr. 300 ANTHONY MANCUSO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. Docket No. B043903. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three. July 11, 1991. *91 COUNSEL Chase, Rotchford, Drukker & Bogus

People v Mancuso (2024 NY Slip Op 01408) People v Mancuso 2024 NY Slip Op 01408 Decided on March 15, 2024 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

Mancuso v Town of Alden (2024 NY Slip Op 00521) Mancuso v Town of Alden 2024 NY Slip Op 00521 Decided on February 2, 2024 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431

653 F.Supp. 775 (1987) Frederick FRATIELLO, Plaintiff, v. Anthony MANCUSO, Chief of Police for the City of Providence; Detective George Dean; Detective Malcolm Brown; Sargeant Joseph Gleckman; Patrolman Robert Larkin; Patrolman James Rodger; Patrolman Orestes Fleitas; The City of Providence; and Stephen T. Napolitano, City Treasurer for the City of Providence, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 84-0615 L. United

ORDER This case came before a hearing panel of this court for oral argument October 15, 1996, pursuant to an order that had directed the plaintiff, Anthony J. Mancuso, to appear and show cause why the defendant’s appeal should not be summarily sustained. After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown. This case was present

[1] OPINION [2] The plaintiffs in this Superior Court civil action each hold the rank of patrolman in the Providence police department. The defendant is the department's chief. In their original complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had violated various provisions of the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights Act, G.L. 1956 (1984 Reenactment) chapter 28.6 of title 42, as well as their civil rights. They also sought injunctive relief. During the pendenc

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., arising out of a motor vehicle accident, plaintiff Annette Mancuso appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mc-Brien, J.), dated September 11, 1984, which directed her to appear for an examination before trial upon a specified date, and to submit to a physical examination within 30 days thereafter. Order affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff Annette Mancuso shall s

Order affirmed, without costs, in the following'memorandum: Plaintiff’s application, in his present action to recover for personal injuries, to compel MVAJC to defend the action on behalf of the defendant truck driver is held to have begun a separate special proceeding as to MVAIC. Accordingly the order of the Appellate Division affirming the denial of that application is a final order within the so-called third-party finality principle (Cohen and Karger,

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 8, 1970, which denied his motion to compel respondent to appear in the action on behalf of defendant Cappiello. Order affirmed, without costs. We are in sympathy with the result reached in the dissenting memorandum by Mr. Justice Gulotta, but, as Judge Breitel noted with respect to a different provision of .the Motor

John Copertino, J. The defendant, charged with the misdemeanor possession of a loaded revolver in violation of subdivision 2 of section 265.05 of the Penal Law moves to transfer the complaint to the Family Court pursuant to section 813 of the Family Court Act. The District Attorney consents, citing as authority People v. Fowlkes (24 N Y 2d 274, 285). The weapon came to the

119 B.R. 106 (1990) In re DONDI FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Debtor. Anthony M. MANCUSO, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. Ray CHAMPION, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 387-34093 RCM-7, Adv. No. 389-3789. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. August 28, 1990. Philip I. Palmer, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff. T. Rick Frazier, Dallas, Tex., for defendant.

551 P.2d 110 (1976) STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Anthony Alan MANCUSO, Appellant. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted May 18, 1976. Decided June 21, 1976. Paul J. De Muniz, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem. John W. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem,

AXELRAD, J.T.C. For the 1997 and 1998 tax years, the parcels designated as Block 1079, Lots 1 and 2, on the Township of Lakewood, Tax Map, were assessed at $327,000 and $372,000, land only, respectively. Pursuant to a stipulation of settlement entered into between the parties, a Tax Court judgment was entered on October 19, 1998 for tax year 1997, in the amount of $230,000 per lot, land only. The stipulation was silent as to