Cases

GRIMM, Judge. In these two cases, Meyer v. Meyer and Sladek v. Sladek, the trial court appointed guardians ad litem (GAL) for the children and ordered their fees paid from public funds of St. Louis County. In an attempt to collect their fees, the guardians garnished County’s funds. County then moved to intervene and quash the garnishments; both motions were denied. County raises two poin

112 March 19, 2025 No. 236 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Annette FISK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRED MEYER STORES, INC., an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Respondent. Multnomah County Circuit Court 21CV19744; A182350 Eric L. Dahlin, Judge. Argued and submitted Februar

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 07a0101p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X Plaintiff-Appellee, - SAMUEL DAVID STOCKMA

2022 WI 39 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2021AP1222-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Matthew R. Meyer, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Matthew R. Meyer,

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.,  MICHAEL M. MEYER; PATRICIA J. SZERLIP, No. 06-17084 Plaintiffs-Appellants,  D.C. No. CV-00-01303-SBA v. HORIZON HEALTH CORPORATION; OPINION SUMMIT MEDICAL CENTER; SUKHDEEP GREWA

OPINION OF THE COURT ALDISERT, Chief Judge. In this diversity ease we must determine whether the district court properly applied the law of personal jurisdiction and the New Jersey borrowing rule for statutes of limitations. We determine the district court correctly found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant Cunningham, and affirm its dismissal of that portion of the complaint. However, bec

993 F.Supp. 923 (1995) H. George DENT, Jr.; Ashley Realty Company, Inc., a South Carolina Corporation; and Southern Dredging Co., Inc., a South Carolina Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. BEAZER MATERIALS AND SERVICES, INC. and Beazer East, Inc., Successors in Interest to Koppers Company, Inc.; Agrico Chemical Company, Continental Oil Company, American Agricultural Chemical Company; and Fos-Kem Liquidation Corporation, Defendants, of whom BEAZER MAT

786 F.2d 173 Jo Carolyn DENT & James A. Dent, Sr.v.Josephine CUNNINGHAM & General Motors Corp., a corporationof the State of Delaware.Appeal of Jo Carolyn DENT and James A. Dent, Sr. No. 85-5487. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued March 3, 1986.Decided March 19, 1986. McLe

4 Ill. App.2d 500 (1955) 124 N.E.2d 360 Gerald Dent, a Minor, by Edward L. Dent, His Father and Next Friend, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, and Harry L. Meyer, Defendants-Appellees. Term No. 54-O-20. Illinois Appellate Court — Fourth District. February 1, 1955. Released for publication March 3, 1955.<

364 F.Supp. 565 (1973) Dennis O'NEILL, Plaintiff. v. Frederick B. DENT, Secretary of Commerce of the United States, et al., Defendants. No. 71-C-1480. United States District Court, E. D. New York. July 16, 1973. *566 Kunstler, Kunstler & Hyman, New York City, for plaintiff; Steven J. Hyman, New York City, of counsel. R

Wiles, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in dece- . dent’s Federal estate tax in the amount of $41,001.01. After concessions, the sole issue for decision is whether, when there are two or more transferors,, the credit for Federal estate tax on prior, transfers under section 20131 is to be computed separately with respect to the property received from each transferor.

LYNCH, Circuit Judge. The issue on appeal is whether a federal district court sitting in Massachusetts has specific personal jurisdiction over a suit brought by Richard A. Daynard, a Massachusetts law professor, for fees in the tobacco litigation, against the Mississippi law firm of Scruggs, Millette, Bozeman & Dent, and Richard Scruggs, a senior partner (“Scruggs defendants”)

HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge. Raymond J. Hughes, Jr. and his brother, Ronald Hughes, brought suit in federal district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two Sauk County, Wisconsin, deputy sheriffs and a Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) conservation warden. The Hughes brothers alleged that the defendants violated their rights under the fourth amendment to t

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes delivered the opinion of the court.

246 Minn. 132 (1956) HARRY L. McMILLEN v. CARLUS G. MEYER AND ANOTHER. M. FERN McMILLEN v. SAME.[1] Nos. 36,607, 36,610. Supreme Court of Minnesota. January 13, 1956. *133 C. Stanley McMahon and George, Brehmer & McMahon, for appellant Harry L. McMillen and respondent M. Fern McMillen.

MORGAN, District Judge. The above entitled action was submitted to this court upon stipulated facts and briefs. Findings of Fact 1. Plaintiffs are executors of the Estate of Albert F. Meyer, who died September 14, 1952, having received Letters Testamentary as such executors from the Surrogate’s Court of Erie County, New York, on October 9, 1952, and presently are acting as such executor

JOHNSON, District Judge. This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granting a motion made on behalf of the defendants-appellees for summary judgment made pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.; the District Court in its unreported opinion rendered

Appellee brought suit on an insurance policy dated December 23, 1890, issued by appellant, by which his property was insured, as follows: One-story frame building and additions, in the sum of $2400; stable building, in the sum of $115; servant's house, in the sum of $65 — all situated on Akard street, in the city of Dallas, Texas. And alleged, that on April 7, 1891, while the policy was in force, a fire occurred, totally destroying the dwelling house and the servant's house, whereby he

Hammond, J. In this equity cause a decree was originally rendered for the plaintiffs on their bill and for costs. An appeal was taken, and the case was reversed in the supreme court, (10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 13,) with directions to dismiss the bill and render judgment for costs against the plaintiffs and the surety on their prosecution bonds. The costs claimed for defendants are as follows: Clerk’s fees, pa

HAND, Circuit Judge. This case comes up on a petition by taxpayers, husband and wife (whom we shall call Stavisky), to review an order of the Tax Court allowing a payment to Sutro only as a long-term capital loss, deductible subject to the limitations of § 117(d) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code, and not as an “ordinary loss” deductib