Cases

Penoyar, J. ¶1 Kenneth and Betty Lambrecht1 cared for their great-granddaughter, SH,2 from when she was three months old until she was four and a half years old. Two weeks before finalizing their adoption of SH, the Department of Social and Health Services (Department) removed SH from the Lambrechts’ home in response to a report of a physical altercation between Kenneth an

353 F.3d 436 WOMEN'S MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; Martin Haskell, MD, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.Bob TAFT, Governor; Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General; Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Defendants-Appellants. No. 01-4124. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued: April 29, 2003. Decided and Filed: December 17, 2003.

PER CURIAM: Betty B Coal Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s order requiring it to reimburse the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund (“Trust Fund”) for medical benefits paid by the Trust Fund on behalf of Art Stanley. Our *982review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upo

GOLDBERG, Circuit Judge: In a notice dated December 8, 1987, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the “Commissioner”) determined deficiencies in George H. and Betty A. Jones’ (collectively hereinafter referred to as “Taxpayers”) income tax for the taxable years ending December 31, 1981, 1982 and 1983, in the amounts of $7,355, $37,513, and $37,031 respectively. The case was sub

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1902 Doc: 62 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 9 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1902 CHRISTINE GIBBONS, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. BETTY ANN GIBBS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Lynchburg Electoral Bo

OPINION BY President Judge PELLEGRINI.1 I. INTRODUCTION These consolidated cases involve a dispute over the control of a nonprofit corpo*101ration and church property, including the church building, land and personal property. Internecine battles of this kind have existed for hundreds of years i

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2254 Doc: 39 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 9 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1902 CHRISTINE GIBBONS, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. BETTY ANN GIBBS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Lynchburg Electoral Bo

González, J. ¶1 This case presents a straightforward issue of appellate procedure. The question is whether the Court of Appeals erred by reviewing separate and distinct claims that had been resolved below and were not raised on appeal. The parties were not challenging the disposition of those claims, and thus, the claims had been finally adjudicated. The Court of Appeals nevertheless addressed the abandoned claims sua sponte and

427 F.Supp.2d 725 (2006) Roosevelt WASHINGTON, Sharon R. Howard, Robin Quick, Betty Burton and Raymond Doss, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated Plaintiffs v. FRED'S STORES OF TENNESSEE, INC. Defendant. No. 3:06CV24-WHB-JCS. United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Jackson Division. April 17, 2006. *726 L

PER CURIAM: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed deficiencies in the 1977 and 1978 income taxes of Howard and Betty Watson. They filed an action in the United States Tax Court seeking a redetermination of the Commissioner’s finding. The court subsequently dismissed the Watsons’ case under Rule 123(b) of its Rules of Practic

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DELORES POLK; SCOTT UNGAR; No. 20-17095 HEATHER HERRICK; LIEN LOI; JOLENE MONTOYA; PETER LOI; D.C. No. SUSAN MCKAY, as individuals and 2:18-cv-02900- representatives of the requested KJM-KJN class, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BETTY YEE, in her official capacity as State Controller of California; SERVICE EMPLOYEES IN

10 F.Supp.2d 575 (1997) BELL-ATLANTIC-WASHINGTON, DC, Plaintiff. v. Syed H. ZAIDI, Defendant. Civil Action No. 97-467-A. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. December 5, 1997. Amended Order Filed, December 10, 1997. Betty S.W. Graumlich, McSweeney, Burtch & Crump, Richmond, VA, for Plaintiff. Syed H. (Nayyar)

AMENDED ORDER ZILLY, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff United States brings this action in its own right and on behalf of Plaintiff-Intervenor Lummi Indian Nation (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), seeking a declaration that the Treaty of Point Elliott impliedly reserved the. groundwater under the Lum-mi Peninsula for the use and benefit of the Lummi Nation. Defendant State of W

348 F.3d 177 William H. SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant,v.Betty MITCHELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 00-4030. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued: September 18, 2002. Decided and Filed: October 28, 2003. Petition for Rehearing Denied En Banc: February 6, 2004. Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-18-00263-CR CYNTHIA BETTY HODGES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 440th District Court Coryell County, Texas

55 S.W.3d 372 (2001) Alfred J. FISCHER, Nancy A. Fischer, Alfred G. Fischer, Shirley M. Fischer, Ralph A. Riegal, Eugene Kleekamp, Rose Kleekamp, James G. Hillermann, Mary Jo Hillermann-Marquart, Russel Mayer, Rosalie Mayer, Roger Koch, Doris Koch, Betty J. Smith, Edward H. Jasper, Karen Jasper, Mark Jasper, John Joseph Jasper and Dean O. Jasper, Respondents. v. CITY OF WASHINGTON, Missouri, Appellant. Nos. ED 78429, ED 7846

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2022-CA-01251-COA ROBERT CLARK AND BETTY HAGGARD APPELLANTS v. ALFA INSURANCE CORPORATION APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/16/2022 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. HENRY ROSS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: WINSTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR

ENGEL, Circuit Judge. In this case the government appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, refunding to taxpayer plaintiffs Thomas H. Hutton and Betty Hutton $36,872.66 in federal income taxes and interest which the trial court found had been improperly assessed against them

OPINION FUENTES, Senior Circuit Judge: For over 22 years, Plaintiff Gilbert Hyatt has contested in administrative proceedings a California Franchise Tax’ Board ruling that he owed close to $7.4 million in taxes, penalties, and interest. This initial deficiency, compounding daily with 3% interest, grew to over $55 mi

Per Curiam. Washington asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his mandamus action. Washington’s claims are meritless. As the court of appeals properly concluded, Washington, who does not claim that R.C. 2969.25 is inapplicable to mandamus actions, did not comply with the mandatory requirements of that statute in commencing his action. See State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd. </