Cases

Over the next fifteen years, Rosales provided the Gallery with dozens of previously undiscovered works by well-known Abstract Expressionist artists (the "Rosales Paintings"), and the Gallery sold these paintings to its customers. (Rosales Painting List (Hilti Dkt. No. 219-104)) All of these paintings were forgeries. (Sept. 16, 2013 Rosales Plea Tr. at 27:11-18), United States v. Rosales, No. 13 Crim. 518 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2013), Dk

PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270, and sentenced to 14 months in prison. At the same sentencing hearing, his probation for a prior conviction of third-degree assault was revoked and he received an 18-month dispositional departure sentence, to be served consecutively to the sentence in the possession case. On appeal, defendant argues that ORS 166.270 violates Article I,

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER PAUL G. GARDEPHE, District Judge: In these actions, Plaintiffs claim that certain paintings they purchased from Defendant Knoedler Gallery, LLC (“Knoedler”) are forgeries. In addition to Knoedler, all Plaintiffs name the following as defendants: 8-31 Holdings Inc. (“8-31”), Knoedler’s. sole member; Michael Hammer, Knoedler’s managing member and the owner of 8-31 H

826 N.E.2d 1135 (2005) 357 Ill. App.3d 122 292 Ill.Dec. 699 ILLINOIS HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Nathaniel S. SHAPO, the Director of Insurance of the State of Illinois, the Department of Insurance, Michael B. Nash, Royal B. Martin, Oak Park Hospital, Paul T. Atkenson, EHS Hospitals-South Chicago Community Hospital, Hartgrove Hospit

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Amul R. Thapar, United States District Judge The doctrine requiring parties to finish up their agency proceedings before coming to federal court is called exhaustion. It will be clear by the end of this Opinion that the doctrine deserves the name. M.L. Johnson Family Properties filed this suit while still involved in a related agency action. The targets of

VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge: ¶ 1 In this special action, Ali Alsarraf challenges the respondent judge's ruling on his appeal from Tucson City Court, in which it reversed the city court's order suppressing breath evidence against him in a prosecution for driving with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more and driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). Exercise of our special-action jurisdiction is appropriate when a party

Phipps, Chief Judge. In this civil in rem forfeiture action, Ricky Mikell appeals the trial court’s order finding that his residence was subject to forfeiture because the property had been used to facilitate a drug transaction. Mikell contends that the trial court erred by failing to perform the proper constitutional analysis on the record. As discussed below, the record does not reveal whether the trial court performed the de

MARTIN, Circuit Judge: Mowafak, Antoun, and Fadi Chahla 1 are brothers from Syria. The Chahla brothers married two sisters, Victoria and Genetta Knight, as well a third woman, Brenda Pettit, who was (intermittently) related to Victoria and Genetta by way of her marriage to their brother. The government charged them all wi

STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Vermont Unit Docket Nos. 68-5-14 Vtec 69-5-14 Vtec & 70-5-14 Vtec Hannaford SD Revision Application, Aubuchon SP Revision Application,

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan May 9, 2018 Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice 157589-640 & (17) Brian K. Zahra

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RULE 23(b)(2) CLASS CERTIFICATION CLAUDIA WILKEN, United States District Judge Consolidated Plaintiffs and Jenkins Plaintiffs, current and former collegiate athletes, jointly move for certification of injunctive relief classes. Defendants, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and a group of Division I conferences, oppose the motion. After considering the parties’ subm

STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Vermont Unit Docket No. 114-8-14 Vtec Hinesburg Hannaford Water Quality Certification DECISION ON MOTIONS Decision on Motion to Dismiss Questions and Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings The pending appeal relates to development proposed by Martin’s Food

MAXWELL, J., dissenting: ¶ 22. Not every act or omission by a medical professional is a professional act. With that in mind, I find it important that Crosthwait does not allege Nurse Morgan failed to assess and meet her medical needs. Instead, Crosthwait complains that, in assisting her with her shower, Morgan created a peril — a wet bathroom floor. And Morgan, allegedly knowing that approximately an inch of

945 A.2d 484 (2008) 107 Conn.App. 354 Joseph KONEFAL v. Martin KONEFAL. No. 28253. Appellate Court of Connecticut. Argued January 11, 2008. Decided April 29, 2008. *485 Kim Coleman, with whom, on the brief, was Norman A. Pattis, Bethany, for the appellant (defendant). Robbie T. Gerr

*738 OPINION OLIVER, JR., District Judge. L & W Supply Corp. (“L & W”) appeals the order of the district court in this diversity contract action awarding appellee Acuity (“Acuity”) costs for expert witness fees. For the reasons which follow, we reverse the district court’s

477 F.Supp.2d 461 (2007) Henry YORZINSKI, Plaintiff, v. John ALVES, et al., Defendants. No. 3:05cv1656 (JBA). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. February 16, 2007. *462 *463 Erin Marie Kallaugher, Norman A. Pattis, Bethany, CT, for Plaintiff. Alan Raymond Dembiczak, John J. R

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KAREN MARIE WILSON , No. 10-72754 Petitioner-Appellee, Tax Ct. No. v. 23882-04 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , OPINION Respondent-Appellant. Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Argued a

359 F.Supp.2d 726 (2005) Philip BURKE, Plaintiff, v. ETHYL PETROLEUM ADDITIVES, INC., Defendant. No. 04-CV-0280-MJR. United States District Court, S.D. Illinois. March 9, 2005. *727 Patrick R. Foley, Becker, Paulson et al., Generally Admitted, Belleville, IL, for Plaintiff. James N. Foster, Jr., Robert D. Younger, Mary Car

STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Vermont Unit Hinesburg Hannaford CU Approval; Docket No. 129-9-12 Vtec Hinesburg Hannaford SP Approval; Docket No. 163-11-12 Vtec Hinesburg Hannaford Subdivision Revision; Docket No. 68-5-14 Vtec Aubuchon (FH Plaza) SP Revision Docket No. 69-5-

STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Vermont Unit Docket No. 73-5-14 Vtec Hinesburg Hannaford Wetland Determination DECISION ON MOTIONS Decision on Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment The pending appeal relates to development proposed by Martin’s Foods of So