Cases

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

HALL, Circuit Judge: This case concerns a lease (“the Lease”) and a purported joint venture agreement (“the Joint Venture Agreement”) entered into between a son and his father, the now-deceased former president and majority shareholder of a real estate development *149corporation. The Lease grants the son, defendant-counter-plaintiff-appellant Nam T. Tran (“Nam”), con

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tho Tran appeals the district court’s order denying his motion requesting a furlough under 18 U.S.C. § 4243(h)(1) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 21, 2024 NO. 03-22-00670-CV Viet Tran, Individually and a/n/f for B.T.; Nham Vo; Paulina Binh Dang; Huu Maui Tri; Thuy Bich Dang; and James Dang, Appellants v. David Ritter, Appellee APPEAL FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVI

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-22-00670-CV Viet Tran, Individually and a/n/f for B.T.; Nham Vo; Paulina Binh Dang; Huu Maui Tri; Thuy Bich Dang; and James Dang, Appellants v. David Ritter, Appellee FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-GN-22-003267, THE HONORA

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tho Tran appeals the district court’s order denying his motion requesting a furlough under 18 U.S.C. § 4243(h)(1) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v

Dueely, J. Late in the afternoon of January 8, 2007, the defendant drove to the apartment of his estranged wife, Lien Lam, and their two children.1 After entering the apartment and speaking briefly with his six year old son, the defendant retrieved a can of gasoline from his vehicle and carried it into the room where his fourteen month old daughter, Diana, was sleeping. The defendant poured the gasolin

MEMORANDUM OPINION SIMPSON, District Judge. This matter is before the court on appeal from the November 13, 2001 order of the United States Bankruptcy Court overruling the Chapter 7 Trustee’s objection to the exemptions claimed by the debtors in their 1995 Taurus automobile. *888The debtors, Long T. Tran and Khanh Thi

176 S.W.3d 128 (2004) Minh Thu TRAN, Norman L. Roser, and Washington Mutual Bank, FA, Appellants, v. William MACHA and Nita Macha, Appellees. No. 01-03-00126-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston. October 28, 2004. *129 David W. Holman, Holman, Keeling & York, P.C., Larry E. Meyer, McCormick, Hancock & Ne

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed May 3, 2022 SIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00288-CV DAVID MU, Appellant V. GIA TRAN, Appellee On Appeal from the 280th District Court Harris County, Texas

554 S.E.2d 63 (2001) 262 Va. 572 Thanh Van TRAN v. Jane W. GWINN, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator. Record No. 002810. Supreme Court of Virginia. November 2, 2001. *65 Scott D. Helsel (David Eggert; Jeannie Nguyen; Robert J. Katerberg; Arnold & Porter, on briefs), Washington, DC, for appellant.

CURTIN, District Judge. In a decision and order dated November 20, 2003 (Item 132), this court granted in full the motions of plaintiff Excellus Health Plan, Inc. (“Excellus”) to compel production of documents by non-parties Independent Health Association, Inc. (“IHA”) and HealthNow New York Inc. (“HealthNow”), in response to subpoenas served on May 2, 2003. In accordance with the directives of that order, on January 7 and 8,

999 F.Supp. 1369 (1998) Hoang T. TRAN, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation; Does 1 through 10; Doe Corporations, Partnerships and/or other Entities 1-10, Defendants. No. CV. 97-00732-DAE. United States District Court, D. Hawaii. March 27, 1998. *1370 David L. Turk, Michael R. Goodhe

Opinion issued August 28, 2025 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00923-CV ——————————— TAMMY TRAN, TAMMY TRAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW, L.P., AND ADAMS TRAN, Appellants V.

536 S.E.2d 913 (2000) Kim D. TRAN and Joseph Nguyen, t/a Rolling Valley Nail Care v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF FAIRFAX COUNTY, et al. Record No. 992812. Supreme Court of Virginia. November 3, 2000. *914 Alan Rosenblum (Rosenblum & Rosenblum, on brief), Alexandria, for appellants. Pamela K. Pelto, Assistant County Atto

BEDSWORTH, J. *563This is a case in which we order a remand to allow appellant to prepare for a hearing 25 years in his future. It is devoutly to be hoped this will someday be viewed as a reasonable step forward in penological and cultural development rather than too little, too late. Appellant Andrew Tran was convicted of murde

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD TRI TRAN, Defendant and Appellant. S165998 Orange County Superior Court 01HF0193 August 29, 2022 Justice Liu authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Jus

MATHESON, Circuit Judge. The Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services ("ODRS") appeals from the district court's affirmance of an arbitration decision rendered under the Randolph-Sheppard Act (the "RSA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 107 et seq.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2539-14T3 A-2774-14T3 MARK R. KRZYKALSKI and MICHELE KRZYKALSKI, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION Plaintiffs-Appellants, December 5, 2016