Cases

560 So.2d 395 (1990) Suzanne NEWELL, Appellant, v. BEST SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., and Hollywood Gardens Condominium Association, Appellees. No. 88-1170. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. May 2, 1990. William R. Wicks, III of Nicklaus, Valle, Craig & Wicks, Miami, for appellant. *396 Steven E. Stark of

RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice Appellants', The Park Apartments at Fayetteville, LP, The Park Apartments at Fayetteville Management Company, LLC, and Lindsey Management Co., Inc. (Lindsey) (collectively "the Park"),1 appeal centers around the following issue: Do Arkansas's Rules of Professional Conduct require attorney disqualification simply because the attorney had access to client information but d

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Frank Dilworth (“plaintiff’), on behalf of his late-wife Roslyn A. Dilworth (“claimant”), appeals from a decision of defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying claimant’s application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act,

JORDAN, Circuit Judge: These consolidated appeals concern the dismissal with prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6), of the second amended complaints filed in two related toxic tort cases asserting common-law and statutory claims under Florida law. Given the posture of these appeals, one would have expected the parties’ briefs to focus exclusively on whet

164 S.W.3d 267 (2005) Lillian E. GRIFFIS, et al. v. DAVIDSON COUNTY METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT d/b/a Davidson County Board of Education. Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Nashville. February 2, 2005 Session. May 26, 2005. *271 Karl F. Dean, J. Brooks Fox, and John L. Kennedy, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant Metropolitan Governm

In the Iowa Supreme Court No. 24–0769 Submitted September 10, 2025—Filed December 23, 2025 State of Iowa, Appellee, vs. Lynn Melvin Lindaman, Appellant. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Charles C. Sinnard (motion to suppres

Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed November 4, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court

MILLER, Justice, dissenting: In my more than thirty-five years as a trial lawyer and as a Judge on this Court, I have never seen a major case so badly botched. It contains a virtual Augean stables’ worth of error and surplusage.1 These errors range from irrelevant denigrations of the Gazette to important omissions, e.g., the majority’s failure to quote the Gaz

447 B.R. 475 (2009) In re CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC., et al., Debtors. No. 08-35653. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. February 12, 2009. Robin S. Abramowitz, Lazer, Aptheker, Rosella & Yedid, P.C., Melville, NY, for *476 Bond Circuit VIII Delaware Business Trust. Angela Sheffler Abreu, McCarter

Reversed and Remanded and Opinion filed December 21, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court Harr

John A. Fogleman, Justice. At the very threshold we are confronted with the most difficult question presented on this appeal, the answer to which determines whether we even consider appellants’ other points for reversal. The case was tried before a special chancellor, whose election was timely questioned by appropriate objections made by appellants’attorney. These objections are brought forward he

The plaintiffs are husband and wife. The action is for damages claimed to have been suffered by the plaintiffs for slanderous language alleged to have been used by the defendant of, to and concerning the plaintiff Mrs. Floretta Martin. The action is based on subdivision 4 of section 46 of the Civil Code, which defines slander as "a false and unprivileged publication other than libel, which imputes (to a person) . . . a want of chastity." The amended complain

This was an action for the abduction of plaintiff's sixteen-year-old daughter from his home by the defendants. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Appeal by defendant. In the absence of the plaintiff from his home on 14 January, 1919, the defendants, M. C. and Baxter Holmes, went to his house and carried away his sixteen-year-old daughter in an automobile to South Carolina where she was married to Henry Griffin. This was done against the earnest protest of the plaintiff's wife. The defendant

Van Fleet, V. C. The complainants are judgment creditors of Owen T. W. McDonald. They have exhausted their remedy at law, and now seek the aid of this court to reach certain property, which they charge represents money that two of McDonald’s clerks embezzled from him while they were in his employ. For several years prior to 1883, McDonald was engaged in business, in Jersey City, as a wholesale and retail grocer. He failed in 1

On Petition For Rehearing. A petition for a rehearing has been filed herein. Counsel say that "the court has failed to consider some of the statutes and authorities cited by us in our original brief," and again, "some of our contentions in support of which we cited certain statutory provisions and cases were not given any consideration whatever by this court." That is stating the case rather strongly in view of the fact that we indicated in one of

COFFEY, J. Captain Alexis 0. Kustel was a member of the firm of Kustel & Wightman, having their principal place of business in San Francisco, but engaged in commerce in the South Sea Islands. In 1883, June 24, Captain Kustel set sail from the Island of Apia for another island of the Samoan group, in a leaky and unseaworthy vessel; during the night of his departure a fearful storm arose, and neither the vessel nor any of her cre

*304The opinion of the court was delivered by Beasley, C. J. In looking into the propriety of trying a case of this kind in chancery, I find in the precedents no warrant whatever *305for such a practice. Such a course is contrary, as it would appear, to fundamental rules. It is not too much to say

Acheson, D. J. The plaintiff’s claim to exemption from local taxation on its real estate rests upon the assumption that section 17 of the act of assembly of June 7, 1879, (P. L. 112,) entitled “An act to provide revenue by taxation,” is still in full force. That section enacts that “in case any bank or savings institution incorporated by this state, or any national bank, elect to collect annually from the shareholders thereof a t

Pitney, Y. C. In ordei to clearly understand the character of the issues it is worth while to advert briefly to the history of the complainants, their mode of conducting business, and the situation of their affairs at the time Mr. Force first became connected with them. The complainants, as is well known, are successors in title to the original grantees of the executors of Sir George Carteret, of the eastern

MEMORANDUM OPINION KEVIN R. HUENNEKENS, Bankruptcy Judge. The debtors, Circuit City Stores, Inc., et al, (the “Debtors,” or “Circuit City”) filed these bankruptcy cases under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on November 10, 2008 (the “Petition Date”).1 The Debtors’ bankruptcy cases were consolidated for joint administration pursuant to Rule 1015(b) of the Fed