Cases

ORDER MORRIS, United States Magistrate Judge. This case came before the Court on January 31, 2006 for a hearing1 Defendants’ Joint Motion for a Temporary Stay of Discovery and Protective Order (Doc. #29, Motion to Stay) and the opposition thereto (Doc. # 32). The Court had earlier permitted Nominal Defendant Fidelity National Financial, Inc., to file a reply memoran

ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND DENYING THE PETITION FOR REHEARING AND AMENDED OPINION ORDER The opinion filed on May 12, 2009, and amended September 18, 2009, is further amended as follows: Slip opinion at page 13572, paragraph 2, line 10, delete “are” and replace it with “may be.” On line 10 delete the sentence “The California Penal Code ... keep it from being produced.” With these changes, Appella

582 F.3d 896 (2009) Joan Brown KEARNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP; Gregory V. Moser; Larry L. Marshall; Michael McCarty, Defendants-Appellees. No. 07-55566. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted October 22, 2008. Filed May 12, 2009. Amended September 18, 2009.

FILED Nov 14 2023, 8:32 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals

2 A.3d 823 (2010) 297 Conn. 764 Thomas C. FOLEY et al. v. STATE ELECTIONS ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION et al. No. 18646. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued July 20, 2010. Decided July 20, 2010.[*] *824 Wesley W. Horton, with whom were Brendon P. Levesque, Ben M. Krowicki, Daniel I.

EZRA, District Judge: Joan Kearney (“Kearney”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of the federal and state law claims she filed against a representative of the Ramona Unified School District (“RUSD”) and the law firm that represented RUSD (collectively “Defendants”) in an earlier eminent domain proceeding regarding her property. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 129

746 N.W.2d 447 (2008) 2008 WI 24 ACCUWEB, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, Raymond Buisker, Plaintiff v. FOLEY & LARDNER, Harry C. Engstrom, Quarles & Brady LLP and Nicholas Seay, Defendants-Respondents. No. 2005AP3190. Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Argued December 12, 2007. Decided March 28, 2008.

346 S.W.3d 687 (2009) Karen FOLEY, Appellant, v. Mark G. DANIEL and Tim Moore, Appellees. No. 08-07-00188-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso. October 15, 2009. *689 Annette Vanicek, Fort Worth, TX, for Appellant. Mark A. Haney, Kobs, Haney and Hundley LLP, Fort Worth, TX, for Appellees. Before CHEW, C.J., McCLUR

491 F.Supp.2d 595 (2007) FOLEY & LARDNER, L.L.P. v. ALDAR INVESTMENTS, INC., et al. Foley & Lardner, L.L.P. v. Kenneth G. Daniels, L.L.C., et al. Civil Action Nos. 03-760-JJB, 04-866-JJB. United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana. May 30, 2007. *596 Fredrick R. Tulley, Michael Allen Crawford, Taylor, Porter

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-11-0001014 25-JAN-2012 11:14 AM NO. SCPW-11-0001014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I GLENN K.

885 P.2d 583 (1994) Joseph FOLEY, Appellant, v. James C. KENNEDY, Martha Pauline Kennedy, Ralf N. Rost, S. Patricia Rost, Tyrone C. Parker, Sally Parker, Laree Bates, and the Clark County Registrar of Voters, Deborah West, Respondents. Patrick C. CLARY, Fred E. Case, Hazel L. Case, Barbara Lynn Horn, Pamela R. Tarkanian, and Danny J. Tarkanian, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, v. Carolyn M. SPARKS, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, and Cla

Vermont Superior Court Filed 02/20/24 Lamoille Unit VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT 1 fl4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHNSON, District Judge: INTRODUCTION This is a class action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Plaintiffs Gloria Jackson, Sandra Gonzalez, and Daisy Rangel, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others, allege that Cornelius J. Foley, in his capacity as President of the New York State Higher Education Services Corporation (“HESC”), and HESC [hereinafter

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHNSON, District Judge: INTRODUCTION Before this Court is a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This is a class action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs Gloria Jackson, Sandra Gonzalez, and Daisy Rangel, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others, allege that Cornelius J. Foley

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Janowitz, J.), entered October 10, 2014, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs

MEMORANDUM ORDER REBECCA BEACH SMITH, Chief Judge. This matter comes before the court on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Innovative Legal Marketing, LLC (“ILM”) on April 27, 2012. The motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller by Order on May 18, 2012, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 18-1994 LUIS B. SÁNCHEZ, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. JAMES J. FOLEY, individually and as a Massachusetts State Police Officer; MICHAEL A. SWEET, individually and as a Massachusetts State Police Officer; DANIEL T. PURTELL, individually and as a Massachusetts State Police Officer, Defendants, Appe

[Cite as State ex rel. Steele v. Foley, 2020-Ohio-5128.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE EX REL. TRACEE STEELE Petitioner C.A. No. 20CA011675 v. KEITH FOLEY, WARDEN ORIGINAL ACTION IN

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE ABRAMSON Death-row inmates Robert Foley and Ralph Baze appeal from an Order of the Franklin Circuit Court dismissing their Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 418.040 complaint for a declaratory judgment to the effect that “the Kentucky procedures outlining the submission and review of a petition for executive clemency [are] constitutionally inadequate.” Appellants sought an order re

OPINION David Stewart Cercone, United States District Judge . Pending before the court is a motion filed by Petitioner-Maurice F. Foley (“Foley”) for relief- under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 288). For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted. I. INTRODUCTION This case stems from a criminal prosecution in which Foley was charged with numerous offenses,