Cases

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 12, 2023. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-21-00733-CV ONCOLOGY-HEMATOLOGY CONSULTANTS D/B/A CCBD AND BARRY RUSSO, Appellants V. JACOB LOCKE, MD D/B/A JAY LOCKE MD PA, Appellee On Appeal from the 152nd District Court Harris Count

595 S.E.2d 36 (2004) 42 Va. App. 794 Gregory William SULLIVAN v. Karen Ann JONES, f/k/a Karen Ann Knick Sullivan. Record No. 0701-03-4. Court of Appeals of Virginia, Alexandria. April 13, 2004. *38 Richard M. Wexell, Fairfax (Lawrence D. Diehl, Hopewell; Richard M. Wexell & Associates, Fairfax, on brie

[J-1-2023] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, JJ. MICHAEL AND MELISSA SULLIVAN, H/W : No. 18 EAP 2022 : : Appeal from the Judgment of v. : Superior Court entered on A

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE THE STATE OF THE NETHERLANDS, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. MD HELICOPTERS INC., Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 19-0019 FILED 3-19-2020 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2015-095127 The Honorable Joshu

19-1769(L) Sullivan v. UBS AG United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term 2023 Argued: April 30, 2024 Decided: August 22, 2025 Nos. 19-1769(L), 19-2012(XAP) STEPHEN SULLIVAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, WHITE OAK FUND LP, FRONTPOINT PARTNERS TRADING FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT AU

D@mz giles _ ' j/) ,QQU-’ w :l`: Mc,£b prp/w I BE,/`l=,m/F, f h‘m/F, SM/EU/UM> 0~/\/£ §,¢mmw€y \r/`z;oe£/WEAJV fir/0 /vow gate mvv/ml 3m : mms wm r>//`A //,eA/> fm ems/dme Ham\ /9 i n mon/m ,,Q/n/o m¢ §§,55 up §D,\)vj AEA€E, 'm'b log Y/”M C’lH?\),. C

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

Case: 23-20423 Document: 00517047341 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED January 29, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 BRENDAN LINEHAN SHANNON, Bankruptcy Judge. Before the Court is (i) the Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding Pursuant *585to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6) [Adv. Docket No. 4] (the “Officer Motion”) filed by defendants Marc Doubleday, George H

2024 WI App 9 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2023AP32 Complete Title of Case: MARK D. WAGNER, JR., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. ALLEN MEDIA BROADCASTING, D/B/A WKOW-TV CHANNEL 27, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Opinion Filed: January 5, 2024

SUPERIOR COURT MICHAEL BOSWORTH vs. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC d/b/a MR. COOPER Docket: 2079CV00276 Dates: March 3, 2025 Present:

Javonna Andrews v. Laura O’Sullivan, et al., Nos. 1018 and 1553, Sept. Term 2021 Opinion by Wells, C. J. FORECLOSURES—DENIAL OF A MOTION TO STAY—FINAL JUDGMENTS—INTERPLAY BETWEEN RULE 8-202, RULE 2-534, AND COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ARTICE SECTION 12-303 We hold that the denial of the motion to stay was an appealable interlocutory order, final in nature, under Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, § 12-303 (3)(iii). The time to note an ap

Laura H.G. O’Sullivan, et al. v. Joan Kimmett, et al., No. 0699, September Term, 2020. Opinion by Salmon, James P. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned). APPEAL – An immediate appeal may be taken when a circuit court vacates an enrolled judgment ratifying a foreclosure sale. APPEAL – An immediate appeal is not allowed when a circuit court order vacates an unenrolled order ratifying a foreclosure sale. APPEAL – COLLATERAL ORDER DOCTRINE – The fourth element of the collateral order doctrine (that

Michael O’Sullivan v. State of Maryland, No. 3, September Term, 2021. Opinion by Biran, J. PERJURY – PROSECUTION’S BURDEN OF PRODUCTION – COMMON LAW “TWO-WITNESS” RULE – The Court of Appeals declined to abrogate Maryland’s common law “two-witness” rule. The rule provides that the State does not meet its burden of production with respect to the falsity element of a perjury prosecution if it offers only a single witness who testifies directly and positively that the defendant’s prior testimony w

TREVOR N. MCFADDEN, United States District Judge Under the J-1 visa program, foreign doctors, accompanied by their spouse and minor children, can "temporarily" visit the United States for "graduate medical education or training." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(J). Exchange visitors in this category cannot apply for permanen

[Cite as State v. Sullivan, 2017-Ohio-8937.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HANCOCK COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 5-17-09 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. WILLIAM E. SULLIVAN, JR., OPINION DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Appeal from Findlay Municipal Court

Caruso Builder Belle Oak, LLC v. Ronalda Sullivan, No. 2, September Term, 2024. Opinion by Eaves, J. MD. CODE ANN., REAL PROPERTY § 14-117(a)(3)(i) – ACCRUAL OF CLAIMS Section 14-117(a)(3)(i) of the Real Property Article (“RP”) of the Annotated Code of Maryland requires that contracts for the initial sale of real property located in Prince George’s County, where “there are deferred private water and sewer assessments recorded by a covenant or declaration deferring costs for water and sewer imp

Montgomery Park, LLC v. Maryland Department of General Services, Case Nos. 0035 and 0048, September Term 2021. Opinion by Nazarian, J. STATE FINANCE AND PROCUREMENT – MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS – LEGAL STANDARD FOR CANCELLATION OF A PROCUREMENT The correct standard of review when reviewing a procurement agency’s decision to cancel a procurement is whether the decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious. The Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals reviews a procurement o

WILLAMOWSKI, J. {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant William E. Sullivan, Jr. ("Sullivan") appeals the judgment of the Municipal Court of Findlay, Ohio, alleging that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of his Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test ("HGN Test"); (2) the trial court erred in denying his Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal; (3) the trial court erred by overru

OPINION LAURA S. TAYLOR, Bankruptcy Judge: INTRODUCTION Fifteen days after debtor Joseph Sullivan filed a chapter 11 1 petition, Appellees, as holders of a large state court judgment *606 an