Cases

254 F.Supp. 797 (1966) Victor BUSSIE, and his wife Gertrude Foley Bussie and Robert L. Johnston, and his wife Ellen Frith Johnston v. Mrs. Blanche Revere LONG, Mrs. Wilma Lockhart, and Leo J. Theriot, members of, and the Louisiana Tax Commission. Civ. A. No. 3345. United States District Court E. D. Louisiana, Baton Rouge Division. June 2, 1966.

THERIOT, J. 1gThe Appellants, Baptiste Brunner, et al (“Appellants”) appeal the judgment of the Nineteenth Judicial District. Court granting John F. Holloway’s and Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity’s (“Appellees”) Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, we sustain a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action noticed by this court on our own motion, we vacate the sum

RI AL Jfn tbe Wniteb ~tates ~ourt of jfeberal ~laiuts FILED No. 18-184C Filed: June 22, 2018 JUN 2 2 2018 * * * * * * * * * * * * * ****** U.S. COURT OF

PROCEDURE AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND COOKS, J. | j Robert E. Washington, Sr.’s (Washington) ancestors, the Harrell family, acquired a 61.67 acre tract of land in 1929. Simon and Clara- Harrell farmed the property and raised 16 children on this land. The family had undisturbed peaceable use of a right-of-way to their land for more than 80 years. In 1994, Wilbert J. Saucier, Jr.

(2008) Daryl LYONS, Plaintiff, v. BUSI, et al., Defendants. No. CIV S-02-1355-LKK-CMK-P. United States District Court, E.D. California. August 22, 2008. ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, Senior District Judge. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred t

Pro Se Plaintiffs; Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; Breach of Contract; Contract Interpretation. OPINION HORN, J. FINDINGS OF FACT Plaintiffs are twelve current or former employees of the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service), employed in the Los Padr

745 A.2d 396 (2000) 357 Md. 408 Donald Anthony JONES v. STATE of Maryland. No. 35, Sept. Term, 1999. Court of Appeals of Maryland. February 7, 2000. *398 Gina M. Serra, Asst. Public Defender (Stephen E. Harris, Public Defender, on brief), Baltimore, for Petitioner. Mary Ann Ince, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J

626 So.2d 345 (1993) Martha E. SASSONE, et al. v. William S. ELDER, et al. No. 92-C-1856. Supreme Court of Louisiana. October 18, 1993. *346 Thomas A. Rayer, New Orleans, for applicant. John D. Rawls, New Orleans, for respondent. Mark Benjamin Holton, New Orleans, amicus curiae, for Louisiana Press Ass'n. LEM

893 So.2d 488 (2003) William A. SNYDER, alias Corky Snyder v. STATE of Alabama. CR-99-1356. Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama. October 31, 2003. Rehearing Denied February 27, 2004. *503 Jeb Stuart Fannin, Talladega; Mark Smith Nelson, Talladega; and Sonya M. Rudenstine, Montgomery, for appellant. Willia

Eberhardt, Presiding Judge, concurring. While I concur in the judgment and in the opinion, I do think it well to recall that if there are matters in the affidavit which, on *482their face, constitute hearsay, unsupported conclusions, opinions, or if it sets forth facts which would not be admissible in evidence on a trial of the case, these are to be disregarded in deter

Eberhardt, Judge. The statute requires that “Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in the evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.” Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c). Mrs. Gately’s affidavits fail to assert or affirmatively show that the statements which she made in them that th

290 F.3d 1043 Donna Vizcaino; Lesley Stuart, Plaintiffs-Appellants,Donna VIZCAINO; Jon R. Waite; Mark Stout; Geoffrey Culbert; Lesley Stuart; Thomas Morgan; Elizabeth Spokoiny; Larry Spokoiny, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.MICROSOFT CORPORATION, and its health and benefits plans: Health Benefit Plan, Life Insurance Plan, Short-Term and Long-Term Disability Plans, and Savings (401K) Plan, Defendant.Donna Vizcaino; Lesley Stuart, Plaintiffs-

233 So.2d 278 (1970) Parey P. BRANTON et al. v. Honorable Mary Evelyn PARKER, Treasurer, State of Louisiana. No. 8027. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. March 9, 1970. Rehearing Denied April 13, 1970. *281 Richard C. Cadwallader, Jonathan C. Harris, Baton Rouge, for appellants. Jack P. F. Gremil

405 F.Supp. 182 (1975) Herbert MILDNER, Plaintiff, v. Frank A. GULOTTA, Individually and as Presiding Justice, Appellate Division of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department, et al., Defendants. Milton LEVIN, Plaintiff, v. Frank A. GULOTTA et al., Defendants. Julius GERZOF, Plaintiff, v. Frank A. GULOTTA et al., Defendants. Nos. 74 C 1101, 74 C 1668 and 74 C 1684. Unite

This original action, in which a writ of mandamus is sought as against the State *Page 339 Auditor to require of him that he pay the salary claims of two persons, by them filed with respondent and in the sums of $125 and $50, respectively, for services rendered the state as a service officer and secretary, respectively, pursuant to employment under provisions of S.L. 1945, p. 436, was filed in this court September 18, 1945. It was assigned and submitted f

*1047MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LEE H. ROSENTHAL, District Judge. This is a consumer class action certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for settlement. The class is large — over one hundred million payment-card1 holders — and dispersed across the country. Despite a vigorous notice campaign, only eleven valid

Statement of the Case. NICHOLLS, J. This suit is brought by the x'laintiff, styling himsfelf “tutor ad hoe” of the minors, Aloysius Roland Filhiol and Nancy Ruth Filhiol, who are declared to be “the minor children of R. M. Filhiol, late of the parish of Ouachita.” In the petition filed by him he alleges: “That R. M. Filhiol departed this life in the parish of O

Burke, J. This action with the six other cases closely allied, involves the title to some 3,200 acres of land situated in Emmons county, North Dakota. The facts in the case are largely in dispute, and the' abstract covers something like 1,500 pages of printed matter; appellant’s brief contains nearly 400 pages, while respondent’s brief is but a few pages shorter. The case comes to us for trial de novo_, which means that

BASKIN, J. It appears from tbe record that on tbe twelfth day of May, 1899, tbe defendant James Morgan (alias Abe Majors) was convicted in tbe Eirst Judicial District Court in and for Box Elder County, of tbe crime of murder in the first degree, and on tbe sixteenth day of May, was sentenced to be shot, by tbe sheriff of said county, on tbe seventh day of July, 1899; that the defendant appealed from said judgment, and this court

Whitten, J. This is an action brought to contest the election of the defendant to the office of sheriff of Wasco County, Oregon; to which office defendant claims to have been. elected at a general election, held in said county on the sixth day of June, A. d'. 1870. Plaintiff claims that he received a greater number of the legal votes at said election, for said office, than did the defendant, and1 is therefore entitled to-said offic