Cases

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘o

PER CURIAM. Cassandra Garrett appeals the summary denial of her original and amended motions for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the summary denial of all claims, except claim five, which was insufficiently pled. In claim five, Garrett alleges defense counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to withdraw plea. However, she fails to articulate which plea she

Opinion CORRIGAN, J. Luis M. challenges an order that he pay the' City of Lancaster (the City) over $3,800 in restitution for felony vandalism based on nine acts of defacement by graffiti. The Court of Appeal granted this minor’s writ of mandate. When a minor’s actions involve graffiti, the Legislature has expanded the juvenile court’s

COHEN, J. Cassandra Harvey appeals the revocation of her community control.1 On appeal, Harvey challenges the sentence imposed, and the trial court’s finding that her violation was willful and substantial. We find no error in the court’s determination that the violation of community control was willful and substantial. However, the court appears to have failed to appreciate its sentencing options

741 F.Supp.2d 307 (2010) Ronald EATON, Plaintiff, v. HANCOCK COUNTY, et. al., Defendants. No. CV-08-370-B-W. United States District Court, D. Maine. September 28, 2010. *311 Dale F. Thistle, Law Office of Dale F. Thistle, Newport, ME, N. Laurence Willey, Jr., Thomas M. Matzilevich, Willey Law Offices, Bangor, ME, for Plaintiff.</

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Malveaux, Friedman and Senior Judge Petty PUBLISHED Argued at Williamsburg, Virginia JUAN B. RODRIGUEZ, S/K/A JUAN BAUTISTA RODRIGUEZ OPINION BY v. Record No. 0480-24-1 JUDGE MARY BENNETT MALVEAUX

722 F.Supp. 814 (1988) TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. WALTHAM INDUSTRIAL LABORATORIES CORP., Memory Lane, Inc., Melvin Rosenfeld and Phyllis Rosenfeld, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 87-0760-MA. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. September 26, 1988. *815 David O. Brink, Owen Gallagher, John P. Graceffa, Gallaghe

PER CURIAM. Cassandra Garvin appeals the denial of her motion to withdraw plea. Originally charged with a felony, Garvin pled guilty and was sentenced on a misdemeanor battery charge. We affirm without discussion. See Williams v. State, 316 So.2d 267 (Fla.1975). In our review, however, we noted a scrivener’s error in the judgment. The trial court agreed to a withhold of adjudication; however, the judgment reflected

952 P.2d 779 (1997) Harvey SENDER, as Trustee for Hedged Investments Associates, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KIDDER PEABODY & CO., INC., a Delaware corporation; Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Prudential Securities, Inc., f/k/a Prudential-Bache, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 95CA2129. Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. V. July 10, 1997.

191 F.Supp.2d 1292 (2002) HOUSEHOLD BANK, f.s.b., Plaintiff, v. JFS GROUP, et al., Defendants, H & R Block, et al., Plaintiffs/Intervenors. No. CIV.A. 01A1405N. United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division. March 8, 2002. *1293 *1294 Stewart M. Cox, Andrew J. Noble, II

152 F.Supp.2d 1234 (2001) UNITED STATES of America and the State of Colorado, Plaintiffs, Counter-Defendants, and Third-Party Defendants, v. Robert M. FRIEDLAND, Defendant, Counter-Defendant, Counter-Claimant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Aztec Minerals Corporation, an Ohio corporation; South Mountain Minerals Corporation and Gray Eagle Mining Corporation, a Colorado Corporation, Third-Party Defendants, Counter and Cross-Claimants, and Th

Per Curiam. *1021The moving papers indicate that despite written notices sent to them by the Office of Court Administration at their last known address, respondents have failed to register and pay the required fee. Judiciary Law § 468-a (5) provides that noncompliance with the statute and rules regarding attorney registration “shall constitute conduc

Per Curiam. *1021The moving papers indicate that despite written notices sent to them by the Office of Court Administration at their last known address, respondents have failed to register and pay the required fee. Judiciary Law § 468-a (5) provides that noncompliance with the statute and rules regarding attorney registration “shall constitute conduc

841 F.Supp. 1423 (1993) APEX MUNICIPAL FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. N-GROUP SECURITIES, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. H-92-0546. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. October 28, 1993. *1424 Kathy D. Patrick, Gibbs & Ratliff, Houston, TX, for plaintiffs. Carl A. Parker, Port Arthur, TX, for N-Gr

Cite as 2017 Ark. 92 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-16-185 ELIZABETH ANN WILLIAMSON, Opinion Delivered March 16, 2017 ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CYNTHIA FRAZIER APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT APPELLANT [NO. 60CV-2012-930] V.

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 12, 2003 Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 12, 2003. In The

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cassandra M. Mullen, J.), entered on or about November 15, 2010, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA; Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs. Defendant, who seeks to have his sex offender status under SORA reduced from a level three to a level two, argues that 15 points were improperly assessed

ACCEPTED 01-15-00867-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cassandra M. Mullen, J.), entered on or about November 15, 2010, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA; Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs. Defendant, who seeks to have his sex offender status under SORA reduced from a level three to a level two, argues that 15 points were improperly assessed

ACCEPTED 01-15-00571-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 9/24/2015 9:45:33 PM CHRIST