Cases

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 14-1-06964-9, Samuel Chung, J., entered September 4, 2015. Affirmed in part and reversed in part by unpublished opinion per Leach, J., concurred in by Cox and Mann, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RALPH B. KIRSCHER, Bankruptcy Judge. On January 6, 2006, Plaintiffs filed an adversary proceeding complaint against the named Defendants. Defendants filed an answer, doc. no. 6 on April 5, 2006. On September 25, 2006, Plaintiffs, M. Penny Leatzow, of Kalispell, Montana, filed an amended complaint. On November 7, 2006, Defendants, represented by Charles E. Hansberry, filed a motion for

OPINION CLIFTON, Circuit Judge: Kim Dana Decker appeals the district court’s denial of her application for attorney fees. In earlier proceedings in the district court, Decker successfully challenged the Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability benefits and obtained a remand of her claim to the agency for further consideration. The district

¶1 Joseph Decker walked into a convenience store and stole two packs of cigarettes. Corey Judd, the store clerk and the son of the store owners, followed Decker outside. Judd placed his arm on the driver’s windowsill of the car Decker entered and asked for the cigarettes back. Decker, sitting in the front passenger seat, reached across the driver and grasped Judd’s arm. Concerned that *429he might

111 P.3d 286 (2005) STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Joseph Albert DECKER, Appellant. No. 53614-1-I. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. May 9, 2005. Dana M. Nelson, Nielsen Broman & Koch PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Appellant. Alice Degen, King County Prosecutor's Office, Seattle, WA, for Respondent. APPELWICK, J. ¶ 1 Joseph Decker wal

650 F.3d 1007 (2011) Alexander ALLI; Elliot Grenade, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants v. Thomas DECKER, Field Office Director, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity and his successors and assigns; Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, in her official capacity and her successors and assigns; Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, i

Decision PER CURIAM: T1 Darrell Eugene Washington appeals the trial court's order denying his motions to compel discovery, which were filed in his criminal case. This appeal is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of a substantial question for review. We affirm. 12 Washington pleaded guilty to a third degree felony in 2001. In 2012, he sought to cha

ORDER In Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011), we reversed the decision of the district court dismissing plaintiffs suit brought under the Clean Water Act. While our decision was awaiting review by the United States Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency amended the relevant regulation. See Rev

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-8-00567-9, Jack Richey, Commissioner, entered May 13, 1994. Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Agid, J., concurred in by Baker, C.J., and Cox, J.

[Cite as State v. Decker, 2020-Ohio-1464.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 16AP-684 v. : (C.P.C. No. 14CR-2164) Louis Decker,

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-8-01151-2, Patricia H. Aitken, J., entered May 13, 1994. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

68 Wn. App. 246 (1992) 842 P.2d 500 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. JOSEPH ALBERT DECKER, Petitioner. No. 28148-8-I. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One. December 31, 1992. *247 James W. Conroy of Society of Counsel Representing Accused Persons, for petitioner.

Baker, J. Brent A Decker appeals his sentence for third degree rape, arguing that the trial court incorrectly calculated his offender score. The trial court counted appellant's two 1980 convictions as two separate offenses. We conclude that appellant's two 1980 robbery convictions were "served concurrently" so as to count as a single offense under RCW 9.94A.360(6)(c), and therefore reverse. In February 1980 app

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GESNER, United States Magistrate Judge. This case has been referred to the undersigned for the resolution of discovery disputes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local *89Rule 301. Currently pending is defendant’s motion to compel production of documents, plaintiffs opposition, defendant’s reply, defendant’s supplement

920 F.Supp. 141 (1996) Ronald Edward DECKER and Virginia Faye Decker, Plaintiffs, v. Margaret RICHARDSON, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service et al., Defendants. No. CV. 95-1345-MA. United States District Court, D. Oregon. January 4, 1996. *142 Ronald Edward Decker and Virginia Faye Decker, Warren, Oregon, plaintiffs pro

340 F.Supp.2d 621 (2004) BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. No. Civ. WDQ-02-2070. United States District Court, D. Maryland. October 22, 2004. *622 Herbert Odell, Philip Karter, Laura Gould Ferguson, Miller & Chevalier Chartered, Bala Cynwyd, PA, Harry Pogash, The Black & De

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge MICHAEL wrote the opinion, in which Judge LUTTIG and Judge WILLIAMS joined. OPINION MICHAEL, Circuit Judge. A corporate taxpayer paid $561 million to a controlled subsidiary in exchange for 10,000 shares of the subsidiary’s stock and the subsidiary’s ass

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-1725 ROBERT DECKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KATHERINE SIREVELD, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: A three-judge panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ securities fraud class action against GlenFed, Inc. and various of its officers and directors. In re Glen-Fed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 11 F.3d 843 (9th Cir.1993). The panel dismissed plaintiffs’ claim under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), as not meeting the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(

MANSFIELD, Justice. This administrative review proceeding requires us to decide whether a company providing Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service on cable wires in Iowa is subject to central assessment as a “telephone company operating a line in this state” or, otherwise stated, a company “that ... operates ... any ... telephone line.” Iowa Code §§ 433.1, .12 (2007). In ma