Cases

2020 WI App 72 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2018AP2448 Complete Title of Case: BRIAN NELSON AND STACY NELSON, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, PAUL R. ROSENTHAL, ELENA J. ROSENTHAL, MICHAEL M. EASTON AND KARA N. EASTON, INVOLUNTARY-PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 08-2044 B RIAN N ELSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C ARL M ILLER, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 03-C-254—Clifford J. Proud, Magistrate Judge. A

Brian Nelson Excavating, LLC ("Nelson"), filed this petition for a writ of mandamus asking this Court to direct the Montgomery Circuit Court to vacate its order denying Nelson's motion for a summary judgment. Nelson's petition for the writ of mandamus presents two questions for consideration by this Court: (1) Is a claim for damages to a residence caused by vibrations or concussion transferred through the ground a trespass claim or a nuisance claim so as to invoke either a six-year st

POSNER, Circuit Judge. A Wisconsin jury convicted Brian Nelson of first-degree sexual assault on his daughter, “T.,” who had been three years old at the time of the crime. The judge sentenced Nelson to five years in prison. After exhausting his state remedies, see State v. Nelson, 138 Wis.2d 418, 406 N.W.2d 385 (1987), Nelson sought federal habeas corpus. The district c

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 671 CA 13-00359 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. IN THE MATTER OF NELSON BRITTO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (LEAH

VandeWalle, Chief Justice. [¶1] Steven Nelson, individually and for the benefit of J&S Nelson Farms, LLP, appealed from a judgment determining the value of his interest in the Nelson Farms partnership and an order denying his post-judgment motions. Steven Nelson argues the district court erred by ordering various sanctions and determining the value of the partnership. We conclude th

424 B.R. 361 (2009) In re Brian NELSON, Debtor. No. 09 B 24042. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. October 30, 2009. *363 Gerald Mylander, for Trustee. Timothy K. Liou, Chicago, IL, for Debtor. MEMORANDUM OPINION BRUCE W. BLACK, Bankruptcy Judge. In this chapter 13 case

JUSTICE GARMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Chief Justice Fitzgerald and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Karmeier, and Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion. Justice Kilbride dissented, with opinion. OPINION Following a jury trial in October 2006,

WIGGINS, Justice. The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board brought a complaint against the respondent, Brian Jesse Nelson, alleging violations of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Iowa Court Rules, and Attorney Disciplinary Board Rules of Procedure. A division of the Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court of Iowa found Nelson’s conduct violated numerous provis

570 F.3d 868 (2009) Brian NELSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carl MILLER, Defendant-Appellee. No. 08-2044. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued February 25, 2009. Decided July 1, 2009. *871 Alan S. Mills, Attorney (argued), Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Rachel A. Murphy, Attorney (a

Appeal by the father from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Westchester County (Arlene E. Katz, J.), dated July 31, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the father neglected the subject children. Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. In Se

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-25-00448-CR __________________ BRIAN EDUARDO NELSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _____________________________________

JOHNSON, J. ¶ 1 This case involves review of a trial court "to convict" attempted first degree robbery instruction. Petitioner Edward Nelson contends that the State had to prove that the employee he was attempting to rob had ownership, representative, or possessory interest in the property. For this proposition he relies on the holding in State v. Richie1 and argues that this "essential element"

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MeKENNA, J. I. Introduction In eight separate criminal cases,1 Real Party in Interest-Appellant/Petitioner, International Fidelity Insurance Company (“International Fidelity” or “International”) had issued eight separate powers of attorney (“POA[s]”) to either Ida Peppers (“Peppers”) or Charles Fisher (“Fisher”) to execute a bail bond on be

OPINION OF THE COURT BY GINOZA, J. In the eight criminal cases that are part of this appeal, a bail bond was executed by a bail agent, the defendant failed to appear in court as required under the bond, and a bail forfeiture judgment was issued pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 804-51 (2014). The primary question in the appeal is whether the notice to the “surety” about the bail forfeiture judgment,

Watts, J. Md. Code Ann., Transp. (1977, 2012 Repl. Vol., 2018 Supp.) ("TR") § 16-205.1 is "commonly known as the implied consent, administrative per se law, [and] provides [ ] for the automatic suspension of the licenses of drivers who refuse to submit to testing for alcohol and drugs." Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Seenath ,

DONALD L. CORBIN, Justice. 11Appellant, Brian N. Nelson, appeals the judgment of the Grant County Circuit Court convicting him of four counts of sexual assault of a minor and sentencing him consecutively to 672 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. For reversal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the constitutionality of the Arkansas Rape Shield Statute,

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

MEMORANDUM DECISION Mar 05 2015, 10:21 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Miranda D. Bray

Kantrowitz, J. What is the duty of one who owns a bridge to one who commits suicide by jumping from it? The plaintiff, Brian Nelson, administrator of the estate of the decedent, Kathleen Nelson, brought an action for wrongful death pursuant to G. L. c. 229, § 2, and for conscious pain and suffering pursuant to G. L. c. 229, § 6, against the defendant, Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport). A Superior Court judge allowe