Cases

531 F.Supp.2d 333 (2008) John EIDEN, Plaintiff, v. Gina McCARTHY and Linda Yelmini, Defendants. No. 3:05CV01411(DJS). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. January 28, 2008. *334 *335 *336 John R. Williams, New Haven, CT, for Plaintiff. Maria

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Mark Montour, J.), entered March 3, 2015. The order, inter alia, granted the petition to change names. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Niagara County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandu

SHINER, COMMONWEALTH vs., 101 Mass. App. Ct. 206 COMMONWEALTH vs. DOMINIC SHINER. 101 Mass. App. Ct. 206 September 8, 2021 - June 15, 2022 Court Below: Superior Court, Suffolk County Present: Rubin, Milkey, & Henry, JJ. No. 19-P-758. Homicide. Intimidation of Witness. Evidence, Experiment, Demonstration,

In a proceeding to terminate parental rights pursuant to Social Services Law 384-b, the parents separately appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Richróath, J.), entered January 14, 2008, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the subject child was permanently neglected, terminated their respective parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to t

POSNER, Circuit Judge. These three interlocutory appeals arise from a complicated and acrimonious litigation, charging RICO, trademark, and copyright violations along with Indiana torts, that has been percolating in the district court for almost five years. The origins of the litigation go back to 1956, when Sister Mary Ephrem (born, Mildred Neuzil), a Catholic Sister of the C

716 S.E.2d 461 (2011) 282 Va. 267 McCARTHY HOLDINGS LLC v. Vincent W. BURGHER, III. Record No. 101031. Supreme Court of Virginia. September 16, 2011. *462 Nancy D. Greene (Seeger, Faughnan, Mendicino, on briefs), Dulles, for appellant. Michael J. Coughlin (E. Andrew Burcher; Walsh Colucci Lubeley Em

Judgment rendered November 17, 2021. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 54,164-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA ***** IN RE: DANIEL HAMILTON MCCARTHY

212 F.Supp.2d 945 (2002) Dan McCARTHY, as the Parent and as Next Friend of his minor daughter Plaintiff v. Faye BOOZMAN, in his Official Capacity as Director, State of Arkansas Department of Health; John Doe 1 through John Doe 20, in their Official Capacities as agents, servants, employees or officials of the State of Arkansas, Department of Health; and Ozark School District Defendants No. 01-2266. Uni

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia, J.), entered January 25, 2017 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release. In 1992, petitioner was convicted of, among other things, three counts of atte

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Determination confirmed. No opinion. Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner was found in possession of a brown leafy substance, and a correction officer subsequently determined that it was synthetic marihuana. A

*1437 Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Caruso, J.) entered January 15, 2015 in Schenectady County, which dismissed petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing. Petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding claiming to be il

637 N.E.2d 668 (1994) 264 Ill.App.3d 514 202 Ill.Dec. 129 Thomas G. CRONIN, Counterplaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel F. McCARTHY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 1-92-4317. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division. June 30, 1994. *670 Murphy & Boyle Chartered, Chicago (R

Scudder, Circuit Judge. Nowhere does the Constitution's promise of due process mean more than in a criminal trial. This promise translates into an obligation when police and prosecutors find themselves in possession of information that exculpates a criminal defendant. That is the cornerstone of the Supreme Court's 1963 decision in Brady v. Maryland , and this case

OPINION OF THE COURT McLAUTHLIN, Senior Judge: Were the appellant’s initial admissions to authorities the product of an improper custodial interrogation? Did investigators later interview him without honoring his request for counsel? We answer “no” to both questions and, finding no merit in the other errors asserted, affirm the findings and the sentence. After denial of the motion to s

JUDGMENT Per Curiam This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

Melvin, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. I On May 26, 1948, McCarthy-Hicks, Inc., a Maryland corporation, created an express trust known as "Profit Sharing Trust of McCarthy-Hicks, Inc.” The trust was intended to meet the requirements of Section 165 of the federal Internal Revenue Code and amendments thereto so as to render non-taxable contributions to a trust fund thereby created. Und

597 F.Supp. 1388 (1984) Joseph TOUSSAINT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Daniel J. McCARTHY, et al., Defendants. No. C-73-1422 SAW. United States District Court, N.D. California. October 18, 1984. *1389 *1390 *1391 Sidney M. Wolinsky, Anita Arriola, Public Advocate

690 F.Supp. 1323 (1988) Thomas M. McCARTHY and Margaret Reilly, as Co-Executors of the Estate of Matthew E. McCarthy, Plaintiffs, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Defendant. No. 82 Civ. 8332 (CSH). United States District Court, S.D. New York. July 14, 1988. Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston (Joseph A. Kilbourn, Jeffrey M. Winn, of counsel), New York City, for plaintif

5 Cal.App.3d 158 (1970) 85 Cal. Rptr. 50 Estate of MARGUERITE G. McCARTHY, Deceased. NEIL D. McCARTHY, Petitioner and Appellant, v. ROSEMARY M. BULLIS et al., Claimants and Respondents, ROSEMARY M. BULLIS, as Executrix, etc. et al., Petitioners and Respondents. Docket No. 33746. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One. March