Cases

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 27th of September 2018 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Orange County: "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of September 2018."

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J., at suppression hearing; Edward J. McLaughlin, J., at jury trial and sentencing), rendered February 19, 2014, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second *572 felony offender, to an ag

OPINION BOSSON, Justice. {1} Petitioners are retired teachers, professors and other public education employees (collectively, Retirees) who seek a writ of mandamus against the New Mexico Education Retirement Board (ERB), which administers their retirement plan under the Educational Retirement Act (ERA). See NMSA 1978, § 2

Lynn, J. The petitioners, Stephen Bartlett and others, appeal an order of the Superior Court (Abramson, J.) vacating a decision of the City of Manchester Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA), which granted the intervenor, Brookside Congregational Church (Brookside), a variance. Although the petitioners asked the trial court to reverse the ZBA’s decision, they appeal the court’s order because it rules that Brookside’s propo

Bartlett was convicted in North Carolina of three counts of first degree (felony) sexual offense pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-27, 4(a) (2001). He was sentenced to life imprisonment. His convictions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals of North Carolina, State v. Bartlett, 153 N.C. App. 680 (2002) , and the Supreme Court of North Carolina denied Bartlett’s petition for further review and dismissed his appeal, State v. Ba

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Frederick J, Sculin, Jr., Senior United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and (7)'of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See generally Dkt. No, 109. II. BACKGROUND1

MEMORANDUM OPINION KIM R. GIBSON, District Judge. I. Introduction This qui tam action is before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff-Relators Thomas Bartlett and Kimberly Gummo (“Relators”) have alleged that various healthcare providers and related individuals were complicit in a scheme to defraud the United States through their submission of false

GRATTON, Judge. Daniel Lee Dixon appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief and the denial of his Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion for relief from judgment. We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2006, Dixon was tried and convicted for lewd conduct with a m

PERRY, Judge Pro Tem. Daniel L. Widner appeals from his judgment of conviction for trafficking in marijuana, felony, Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(l)(A), (D), and concealing a dangerous weapon in a motor vehicle, misdemeanor, I.C. § 18-3302(9), (14). Widner argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion in limine that sought to exclude from evidence the 2.25 pounds of mariju

PER CURIAM: Joan G. Bartlett appeals the district court’s order dismissing her action filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (2000), for failure to state a claim. The district court properly concluded that Bartlett failed to show that the driver of the vehicle that struck her was acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident. See Smith v. Landmark Communications, Inc.,

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs are thirty-eight individuals and entities who farm corn and soybeans in several counties' in Iowa (collectively, the “Producers”). Each Producer claimed eligibility to receive a payment under the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments Program (“SURE Program”) for the 2008 crop year. In this lawsuit, the Producers allege that the defendants, si

OPINION OF THE COURT Spain, J. Petitioner commenced this proceeding in May 2006 pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 to be appointed guardian of the person and property of her father, respondent Daniel TT. (hereinafter respondent), the alleged incapacitated person. The petition alleges that respondent, then age 87, had been diagnosed with dementia of the Alzheimer’s type, is unable to care for himsel

OPINION OF THE COURT Mercure, J. A Schoharie County Grand Jury indicted respondents Donna Arroyo, Daniel Edwards and Cary W. McKinley (hereinafter collectively referred to as the criminal defendants) for the crimes of murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, conspiracy in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree as the result of the May 12, 1997 shooting deat

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER OF COURT GIBSON, District Judge. SYNOPSIS The instant civil action is filed pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § § 3729-3733 (hereinafter “FCA”). The Plaintiff Relators Thomas Bartlett and Kimberly Gummo (hereinafter collectively “Plaintiffs”) allege that the various Defendants were complicit in a scheme to defraud the Government of money th

04/16/2019 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 15, 2019 Session KERRY GRAY V. SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL-BARTLETT, INC. A/K/A TENET HEALTHSYSTEM BARTLETT, INC. ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-002888-17 Robert Samual Weiss, Judge

21-2019 Bartlett v. Baasiri In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term, 2022 No. 21-2019 ROBERT BARTLETT, TERREL CHARLES BARTLETT, LINDA JONES, SHAWN BARTLETT, MAXINE E. CROCKETT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF RICKY LEON CROCKETT, MARVISE L. CROCKETT, TRACIE ARSIAGA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT R. ARSIAG

Bartlett v Tribeca Lending Corp. (2021 NY Slip Op 01839) Bartlett v Tribeca Lending Corp. 2021 NY Slip Op 01839 Decided on March 25, 2021 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bu

Bartlett v Tribeca Lending Corp. (2021 NY Slip Op 01839) Bartlett v Tribeca Lending Corp. 2021 NY Slip Op 01839 Decided on March 25, 2021 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bu

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER MAE A. D’AGOSTINO, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION In this action, Plaintiff challenged the denial of his application for a permit to possess a pistol pursuant to New York State’s statutory mechanism by which individuals apply for and may be granted permits to carry or possess firearms. On *21February 7,

PER CURIAM: Appellant Alfred Osterweil applied for a handgun license in May 2008. Following the directions of New York Penal Law § 400.00(3)(a), he applied for a license “in the city or county ... where [he] resides.” 1 His house in Schoharie County, New York, was then his primary residence and domicile, but while his a