Cases

On March 24, 1965, the plaintiffs, appellants herein, filed their second amended petition in the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, alleging in substance that they are the owners of certain real property located in Beaver Township in that county zoned in part for residential purposes and in part for agricultural purposes, which property abuts property of the defendant James Andio, an appellee herein, which was similarly zoned by a comprehensive zoning ordinance of the township; that An

41 N.W.2d 721 (1950) SJULIN v. CLIFTON FURNITURE CO. et al. No. 47568. Supreme Court of Iowa. March 7, 1950. *723 Nichols & Nichols, of Sidney, for appellants. Edwin Getscher, of Hamburg, and Edward E. Eaton, of Sidney, for appellee. GARFIELD, Justice. On January 10, 1948, David Sterling Sjulin, called St

Mr. Justice Van Orsdel delivered the opinion of the Court: The exceptions to the verdict set forth numerous objections, and the assignments of error are comprehensive enough to bring up all the exceptions, but counsel for appellant has dis*450cussed but three points in his brief. Hence, all other questions raised by the exceptions and preserved by the a

365 S.W.2d 33 (1963) JOHN OWNBEY CO., Inc. v. G. Hilton BUTLER, Commissioner. JOHN H. DANIEL CO., Inc. v. G. Hilton BUTLER, Commissioner. SOUTHERN CENTRAL CO., Inc. v. Alfred T. MacFARLAND, Commissioner. GRAY & DUDLEY CO., Inc. v. G. Hilton BUTLER, Commissioner. Supreme Court of Tennessee. February 7, 1963. *34

138 N.J. Super. 112 (1975) 350 A.2d 279 HY-GRADE OIL CO., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. NEW JERSEY BANK, A NATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued November 25, 1975. Decided December 23, 1975. *114 Before Judges KOLOVS

CORNELIA G. KENNEDY, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court holding that the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 4321 et seq. (NEPA), does not require the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to file an environmental impact statement (sometimes referred to as an EIS) before listing a species as an endangered

119 Cal.App.2d 138 (1953) CLIFTON WILLIAMS et al., Appellants, v. C. D. McCLELLAN et al., Respondents. Civ. No. 4588. California Court of Appeals. Fourth Dist. July 9, 1953. Clifton Williams, in pro. per., for Appellants. T. Bruce Smith for Respondents. MUSSELL, J. Plaintiffs seek, by this action filed July 16, 1952, to enjoin the defenda

Layton, Chief Justice, delivering the opinion of the court: In the court below, as well as in this court, the complainant earnestly urged that Mrs. Peyton’s promise to transfer her shares of stock in Peyton-duPont Securities Company and Peyton duPont, Inc., to a corporation to be formed pur*340suant to the directions of the fifth article of her husband’s

INTERIM REPORT REGARDING S. 794 “A BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF LAND GRANTORS IN HENDERSON, UNION, AND WEBSTER COUNTIES, KENTUCKY, AND THEIR HEIRS” AND MEMORANDUM OPINION BRADEN, Judge. Shortly after the onset of World War II, the United States (“Government”) acquired approximately 35,849.28 acres of land in the counties of Henderson, Union, and Webster, Kentucky to establish an Army training facility, that later

217 A.2d 217 (1966) Charles D. HAZZARD et al. v. WESTVIEW GOLF CLUB, INC., et al. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. February 18, 1966. *220 William M. Finn, Joseph B. Campbell, Augusta, for plaintiffs. Arthur A. Hebert, Frederick P. O'Connell, Frank E. Southard, Jr., Augusta, for defendants. Before WEBBER, TAPLEY, MARDEN, RUDMAN, and

Ingraham, J. No objection is taken to the form of this action, and, as I ■understand the parties, the object is to have a construction of the lease and of the plaintiff’s liability under it. The first lease in controversy was executed on the 15th of May, 1883, and thereby the defendants leased to the Staten Island Railroad Company'Lhe privilege or franchise to run a ferry from the foot of Whitehall street, in the city of New Yor

Mr. Justice Van Orsdel delivered the opinion of the Court: At the threshold of this inquiry, we axe met with a motion filed by complainant to dismiss the appeal. This motion is based upon three grounds: First, that the judgment of the court below is reviewable by writ of error only, and not by appeal; second, that the record contains no bill of exceptions, agreed statement of facts, or other appropriate basis f

This action was commenced in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, on September 14, 1917. The petition alleges that plaintiff is a Missouri corporation; that the Piggott Store Company was also a Missouri corporation; that on September 1, 1914, there was due plaintiff, from the last named company, the sum of $10,755.13, as per account then rendered; "that on November 1, 1914, the defendant, in writing, herewith filed and marked `Exhibit A,' guaranteed and promised to pay said sum, and pl