Cases

People v Tyes (2018 NY Slip Op 02994) People v Tyes 2018 NY Slip Op 02994 Decided on April 27, 2018 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

JORDAN, Circuit Judge: We hold, for the reasons which follow, that a party’s post-trial claim that a jury *1257 verdict is inconsistent does not preserve for appeal the separate and legally distinct claim that the verdict was the result of an unlawful jury compromise. We therefore affirm the zero

209 Cal.App.3d 940 (1989) 257 Cal. Rptr. 615 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, Defendant and Appellant. Docket No. B036348. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six. April 18, 1989. *943 COUNSEL

597 F.Supp.2d 84 (2009) Kathleen A. BREEN et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ray H. LaHOOD[1] et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 05-654(RWR). United States District Court, District of Columbia. February 17, 2009. *86 Joseph D. Gebhardt, Charles W. Day, Jr., Daniel K. Gebhardt, Valencia R. Rainey, Gebhardt & Associates, LLP,

January 27, 2015 CGOfU OF /\PPe/VlS AJUA\?)£R, O3-rt-O03A5-Gv/ CTM4L CouR.1 CAS£ /UU/n&fcft. Afe»-afe3-0) XM TH£ COUR.1 OF APPEALS FOR. THt STAlfc OF 1£MS (TW\r<} Wferv\£ 3uc)\<Lk\ D\^r\£\^ V Aope<;W Prom tU 5i<\^ 3oclie.K\ fcisAneV rr Cour-\ of fee\\ £000^ j le**S APPtiJ-AAn's foRXer

410 F.Supp.2d 3 (2006) Ian J. BROWN, James Brown, and Barbara Brown v. UNITED STATES of America, Verizon New England, Inc., and Boston Edison Company d/b/a NSTAR Electric. No. Civ.A. 04-11924RGS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. January 18, 2006. *4 Scott E. Charnas, Manheimer & Charnas, LLP, Boston, MA, for Ia

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-03-401 CV ____________________ <

67 Mich. App. 138 (1976) 240 N.W.2d 472 ALSTON v. TYE Docket No. 18757. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided February 9, 1976. Barbara, Wisok, Ruby & Domol, P.C., for plaintiff Lorraine F. Alston. *139 Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General,

HALL, P.J. {¶ 1} Matthew and Joshua Tye appeal from the trial court's entry of judgment against them on their complaint seeking to hold appellees Jeffrey Beausay and the Donahey Law Firm liable for legal malpractice and other claims. {¶ 2} The Tyes advance three assignments of error. First, they contend the trial court erred in not finding an express or implied attorney-client relationship between them and Beausay, o

ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief Judge. Pending before the Court is the jury verdict rendered on February 25, 2014 (doc. 263), and Plaintiff’s in-court objection on grounds that the verdict as rendered is inconsistent. Plaintiffs objection arises from the jury’s finding on special interrogatories that Defendant was liable on claims of negligence and strict liability and assigning 5% of the resp

2015 WI 85 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2013AP296-OA & 2014AP417-W through 2014AP421-W & 2013AP2504-W through 2013AP2508-W COMPLETE TITLE: State of Wisconsin ex rel. Two Unnamed Petitioners, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Gregory A. Peterson, John Doe Judge and Francis D.

2015 WI 85 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2013AP296-OA & 2014AP417-W through 2014AP421-W & 2013AP2504-W through 2013AP2508-W COMPLETE TITLE: State of Wisconsin ex rel. Two Unnamed Petitioners, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Gregory A. Peterson, John Doe Judge and Francis D.

52 Cal.Rptr.3d 114 (2006) 40 Cal.4th 270 147 P.3d 1037 CITY OF GOLETA et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT of Santa Barbara County, Respondent; Oly Chadmar Sandpiper General Partnership, Real Party in Interest. No. S129125. Supreme Court of California. December 21, 2006. *115

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT CITY OF BOSTON AND FOR SANCTIONS DEIN, United States Magistrate Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This is a civil rights action brought by the plaintiffs, Lieutenant Valimore Williams (“Lieutenant Williams”), and his wife, Judith L. Williams (“Ms.Williams”) (collectively, “p

51 Cal.Rptr.3d 116 (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1316 DOMINO'S PIZZA; State Compensation Insurance Fund, Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD of the State of California; Don Kerr, Respondents. No. B188607. Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Six. October 23, 2006. Robert W. Daneri, Suzanne Ah-Tye, San Francisco, a

JOHN DAN KEMP, Chief Justice A Miller County jury found appellant Virginia Hyatt ("Virginia") guilty of the capital murder of Patricia Wheelington ("Patricia").1 Virginia was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. For reversal, Virginia contends that the circuit court erred by denying her motion for directed verdict on the charge of capital murder because the State fa

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER MOTIONS AND ORDER ' TO SHOW CAUSE ROBERT J. BRYAN, United States District Judge This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 58) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 68), Plaintiffs’ two Motion to Strike (Dkts. 68 (refiled at 86 and 87); and 97) and Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Exclude Gr

638 F.3d 1111 (2010) Daniel GUGGENHEIM; Susan Guggenheim; Maureen H. Pierce, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF GOLETA, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 06-56306. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 22, 2010. Filed December 22, 2010. *1112 Robert S. Coldren, Har

309 Ga. 850 FINAL COPY S20A0884. GRAY v. THE STATE. NAHMIAS, Presiding Justice. Appellant Roshun Gray was convicted of malice murder and two firearm offenses in connection with the shooting death of Ferderian Bennett. In this appeal, Appellant contends that he was legally incompetent to stand trial and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate his incompetency. Both of those claims are meritless, so we affirm.1

Opinion by JUDGE WEBB ¶ 1 In this tax dispute, defendants, the Department of Revenue of the State of Colorado (Department) and Barbara Brohl, in her official capacity as the Executive Director of the Department (Director), appeal the district court's summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, Oracle Corporation (Oracle). The district court held that Oracle could not be required to include Oracle Japan Holding, Inc. (OJH), a wholly owne