Cases

763 F.Supp.2d 1 (2011) Kenneth CHAPLIN, Plaintiff, v. William G. STEWART, Jr. et al., Defendants. Civ. Action No. 10-0518 (ESH). United States District Court, District of Columbia. January 10, 2011. Kenneth Chaplin, Coleman, FL, pro se. Sean Joseph Vanek, U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Washington, DC, for Defendants.<

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA KENNETH CHAPLIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civ. Action No. 10-0518 (ESH) ) WILLIAM G. STEWART, JR. et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________

Mercure, J. Proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this Court pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] [1]) to prohibit respondents from obtaining blood samples and dental impressions of petitioner. Petitioner is suspected of committing a murder in a staff apartment at an Association of Retarded Persons Care group home in the City of Troy, Rensselaer County, on March 24, 1994. Police investigation indicated that the female victim, a counse

Reynolds, J. Appeal by the defendants from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County convicting them of the crime of conspiracy. The defendants were indicted for conspiracy to commit the crime of robbery against the person of one William J. Tague. The defendants did not testify in their own behalf nor did they call any witnesses. The prosecution called, as witnesses, Tague, Alexander Karichkowski, at

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for violations of the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101), the defendants FDR Entertainment Co., Inc., doing business as Bar 231 and Valhav Ltd., doing business as Chaplin separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Saladino, J.), dated October 13, 1989, which denied their respective motions to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against each of them, an

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

8 A.3d 1009 (2010) HYK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. SMITHFIELD TOWNSHIP and the Board of Supervisors of Smithfield Township, and Smithfield Township Environmental Advisory Council. Appeal of: Smithfield Township/Board of Supervisors. No. 2047 C.D. 2009. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Argued June 21, 2010. Decided November 19, 2010.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), entered March 30, 2011, which, upon a decision of the same court dated November 10, 2010, and an amended decision of the same court dated November 18, 2010, made after a nonjury trial, inter alia, (1) upon consent, awarded the plaintiff a divorce on the ground of constructiv

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), entered March 30, 2011, which, upon a decision of the same court dated November 10, 2010, and an amended decision of the same court dated November 18, 2010, made after a nonjury trial, inter alia, (1) upon consent, awarded the plaintiff a divorce on the ground of constructiv

54 F.Supp. 926 (1944) UNITED STATES v. CHAPLIN et al. (two cases). Criminal Nos. 16616, 16618 O'C. District Court, S. D. California, Central Division. April 14, 1944. Charles H. Carr, U.S. Atty., of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff. Hazard & Reina, of Beverly Hills, Cal., and J. E. Simpson, of Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant Charles H. Griffin. J.

*********************************************** 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

*294 MEMORANDUM OPINION ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, District Judge. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, challenges the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) response to his request for his records maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”).

FREDERICKA HOMBERG WICKER, Judge. |2The defendant/appellant, Michael Long (“Long”), appeals his conviction and sentence for armed robbery arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the trial court *877erred in imposing a constitutionally excessive sentence. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the conviction and vacate the mu

390 F.Supp.2d 540 (2005) Raymond W. WHITMIRE, Sr., Plaintiff, v. TEREX TELELECT, INC., and Zurich American Insurance Company, Defendants. No. Civ.A.1:03-CV-00051. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division. May 5, 2005. *541 *542 *543

MEMORANDUM OPINION BERYL A. HOWELL, District Judge. Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), see 5 U.S.C. § 552, to challenge defendants’ response to his request for information pertaining to himself and the criminal investigation of his activities. This matter is befor

696 F.Supp.2d 1021 (2010) Daniel A. CHAPPELL, Plaintiff v. Sheriff Timothy HELDER; Washington County, Arkansas, Defendants. Civil No. 07-5219. United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division. March 1, 2010. *1022 Daniel A. Ghappell, Newport, AR, pro se. Janan Arnold Davis, Jason E. Owens, Jeremy M. McNab

422 F.Supp.2d 592 (2006) CAREFIRST OF MARYLAND, INC. d/b/a Carefirst Blue Cross Blue Shield, Plaintiff, v. FIRST CARE, P.C., et al. Defendants. No. CIV.A. 2:04CV191. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division. March 10, 2006. *593 Duane Michael Byers, Nixon & Vanderhye PC, Arlington, VA, for Faith E. Dejao,

[Cite as Summers v. Lancia Nursing Homes, Inc. d.b.a. Belmont Manor Nursing Home, 2016-Ohio-7935.] STATE OF OHIO, BELMONT COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT KAREN J. SUMMERS, AS ) CASE NO. 15 BE 0063 ADMINISTRATRIX, OF THE ) ESTATE OF ARLA JOHNSON ) ) PL

BYE, Circuit Judge. Shirley Phelps-Roper brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the State of Missouri after Missouri passed funeral protest laws Mo.Rev.Stat. § 578.501 and Mo.Rev.Stat. § 578.502. Following this court’s decision in Phelps-Roper v. Nixon, 545 F.3d 685 (8th Cir.2008), the district court enter

FORNELLI, J., On or about April 17, 1982, plaintiffs Mark Alfreno and Cindy Alfreno entered into an agreement with defendant Lawrence Arblaster,1 d/b/a Arblaster Construction Company whereby defendant agreed for the consideration of $48,825 to construct a residence for plaintiffs. The agreement contained provisions for various aspects of the work to be performed by defendant including the ins