Cases

504 F.Supp. 292 (1980) AUBURN NEWS COMPANY, INC. et al. v. PROVIDENCE JOURNAL COMPANY et al. Civ. A. No. 80-0446. United States District Court, D. Rhode Island. November 14, 1980. *293 *294 Frank Licht, Richard A. Licht, Letts, Quinn & Licht, and Leonard DeCof, Providence, R.I., for the pl

239 F.3d 456 (2nd Cir. 2001) MARK ABDU BRISSON, RONALD H. BUCHNER, GORDON BURGESS, ROBERT BURKE, THOMAS D. CALLAHAN, THOMAS F. CAREY, DALE E. CARMAN, LOUIS CARRARA, T. BARRY CASEY, LAMAR CASON, ROBERT T. CASSIDY, ROBERT CHANGERY, LARRY E. CHAPPEL, RICHARD CHARBONNEAU, STANLEY CHECKOWAY, DOUGLAS S. CHRISTENSEN, LEE J. CHURCH, JAMES CIRILLI, ROBERT CLACK, WALTER M. CLARK, PHILIP CLAUDY, HAROLD T. CLEAVER, CHARLES CLEMENTS, RICHARD T. CLOUGH, LAWRENCE

119 Ill. App.3d 640 (1983) 461 N.E.2d 1373 JAMES WALKER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MIDWEST EMERY FREIGHT SYSTEMS et al., Defendants-Appellants. No. 82-1239. Illinois Appellate Court — First District (5th Division). Opinion filed July 15, 1983. Modified on denial of rehearing December 16, 1983.

98 N.J. Super. 366 (1968) 237 A.2d 495 MARGARET BLACK, ADMINISTRATRIX AD PROSEQUENDUM OF THE ESTATE OF VERGES N. BLACK, A/K/A DAVID V. BLACK, A/K/A VIRGIL BLACK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS CO., A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued November 27, 1967. Decided January 11

55 Md. App. 409 (1983) 462 A.2d 1230 CHARLES REED BUTLER v. STATE OF MARYLAND. No. 1599, September Term, 1982. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. Decided July 13, 1983. The cause was argued before GILBERT, C.J., and MOYLAN and ALPERT, JJ. David P. Sutton, Assigned Public Defender, with whom was Alan H. Murrell, Public Defe

McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are several hundred pilots who were employed by the now-defunct Pan American World Airways, Inc. (“Pan Am”). They were hired by Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement between the two airlines. The pilots filed an age discrimination action in New York State Supreme Court challenging three specific terms of their employment with Delta. Delta removed the case

Van Fleet, V. C. The right of the complainant to maintain this action is disputed. One of the defendants has filed a general demurrer. The action is founded on a bequest made by the will of Eobert Hayes, deceased. Mr. Hayes died on the 4th day of July, 1876, and *462his will was admitted to probate on the 14th day of the same month. That part of his will which is made

Separate appeals are prosecuted by defendant William Weisman and defendant Joseph Toplitzky from a judgment entered against both defendants pursuant to the verdict of a jury. The action was to recover secret profits in the purchase of four separate pieces of real property in each of which plaintiff Fink purchased a one-half interest through defendant Weisman at a price in excess of that agreed by Weisman to be paid to the vendor. Defendant Toplitzky was interested in the transaction as a real

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 307 Separate appeals are prosecuted by defendant William Weisman and defendant Joseph Toplitzky from a judgment entered against both defendants pursuant to the verdict of a jury. The action was to recover secret profits in the purchase of four separate pieces of real property in each of which plaintiff Fink purchased

Ellis, J. A statement at some length of the issues and evidence is necessary to any intelligent discussion of this case. The plaintiff, as receiver of the Pioneer Fire Insurance Company, a Washington corporation, brought this action against the defendants, Arizona Fire Insurance Company, an Arizona corporation licensed to do business in the state of Washington, and the defendants J. H. Bridgeford and wife, f

Carr, J. This case is exactly that of Marks and Morris, and brings under review the correctness of that decision. *501It is there decided, that the third section of our statute against usury, is limited to the case of bills of discovery, where, from defect of evidence, the plaintiff is compelled to resort to the conscience of the defend