Cases

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 24-0493 Filed July 23, 2025 CHAMPION CONTRACTORS & SERVICES-COMMERCIAL, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DIMENSIONS SENIOR LIVING, d/b/a VILLAGE PLACE, LLC, DIMENSIONS IN SENIOR LIVING d/b/a VILLAGE RIDGE, LLC, TAPESTRY SENIOR LIVING OF MARION, LLC, VILLAGE PLACE, LLC, VILLAGE RIDGE, LLC, and RYAN BURNS, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________

N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge, dissenting: They say “the third time’s the charm.” Not so in what is now the fourth revision of this opinion, wherein the majority still fails to correct all of its errors. As a result of these errors, contrary to the Federal Rules of Evidence, non-contemporaneous hearsay testimony used to prove a declarant’s memories, beliefs, and the cause of an underlying state of mind i

N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge, dissenting: They say “the third time’s the charm.” Not so in what is now the third revision of this opinion, wherein the majority still fails to correct all of its errors. As a result of these errors, contrary to the Federal Rules of Evidence, non-contemporaneous hearsay testimony used to prove a declarant’s memories, beliefs, and the cause of an underlying state of mind is

N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge, dissenting: In its opinion, the majority fails to correctly construe the hearsay rule and fails to give the proper deference to the district court’s other evidentiary rulings. I must therefore dissent because: 1. Assuming (but not deciding) that a de novo standard of review applies when determining whether a statement is hearsay, the majority fails to properly con

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YVON WAGNER, as the personal No. 10-15501 representative of the Estate of Eric Vogel, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:07-cv-00819- EHC v. ORDER AND COUNTY OF MARICOPA, a political AMENDED subdivision of the St

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YVON WAGNER, as the personal No. 10-15501 representative of the Estate of Eric Vogel, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:07-cv-00819- EHC v. ORDER AND COUNTY OF MARICOPA , a political AMENDED subdivision of the St

458 F.Supp.2d 1015 (2006) Cammerin K. BOYD, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., Defendants. No. C 03-3391 JL. United States District Court, N.D. California. October 17, 2006. *1019 Vicki I. Sarmiento, Law Offices of Vicki I. Sarmiento, Marylon M. Boyd, Law Offices *1020 of Marylon M. Boyd,

524 S.E.2d 179 (1999) 206 W.Va. 258 STATE of West Virginia ex rel. John F. RIST, III, Petitioner, v. Honorable Cecil H. UNDERWOOD, Governor of the State of West Virginia, and Robert S. Kiss, Respondents. State of West Virginia ex rel. Richard A. Robb, W. Kent Carper, Rudolph L. Ditrapano, Roger D. Forman, Marvin W. Masters, Anthony J. Majestro, American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Thomas W. Pettit, Mark E.

Justice ERICKSON delivered the Opinion of the Court. The Board of County Commissioners for Arapahoe County (Arapahoe County), appeals from a judgment of the District Court, Water Division 4 (water court), dismissing Arapahoe County’s applications for conditional water rights decrees in the Gunnison Basin. We affirm the water court’s dismissal of the application for a conditional water rights decree that Ara

ACCEPTED 07-17-00112-CV SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS AMARILLO, TEXAS 8/2/2017 2:36 PM

309 N.E.2d 150 (1974) Helen Lucille BRATTAIN, Defendant-Appellant, v. Hester F. HERRON, Administratrix of the Estate of Lewis A. Herron, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee. Helen Lucille Brattain, Defendant-Appellant, v. IRWIN UNION BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Administrator of the Estate of John B. Bishop, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee. Helen Lucille Brattain, Defendant-Appellant, v. ALBRETA A. BUTLER, Administratrix of the Estate of Richard

128 Ind. App. 532 (1958) 148 N.E.2d 570 DORWEILER ET AL. v. SINKS ET AL. No. 18,921. Court of Appeals of Indiana. Filed March 7, 1958. Rehearing dismissed April 18, 1958. Transfer denied June 10, 1958. *534 George F. Stevens, Stevens and Wampler, of Plymouth, Flo

This is an original action brought by the relators against the Lake Superior Court, Room One, Lake County, Indiana, and the judge thereof, for a writ of prohibition prohibiting the court from continuing to assume jurisdiction in a proceeding for the establishment of a conservancy district in and for Lake County, Indiana, and to mandate the judge thereof to grant a change of venue in said proceeding. From the petition and the return thereto it appears that the City of Hammond, by ordina

355 F.2d 294 66-1 USTC P 9161 Howe A. STIDGER and Betty M. Stidger, Petitioners,v.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. No. 19630. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Dec. 27, 1965. Howe A. Stidger and Betty M. Stidger, in pro. per. Louis

331 U.S. 284 (1947) NEW YORK ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL. No. 343. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 3, 4, 5, 1947. Decided May 12, 1947. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.[*]*288 Parker McCollester argued the cause for appella

232 Ind. 414 (1953) 113 N.E.2d 282 IN THE MATTER OF FILIPIAK; RE DISBARMENT. No. 28,897. Supreme Court of Indiana. Filed June 16, 1953. *415 Albert H. Gavit, of Gary, for defendant. Charles C. Baker, of Indianapolis, Chester Bielby, of Lawrenceburg, Wilbur F. Dassel, of Evansvill

The opinion of the court was delivered by West, J.: December 21, 1907, plaintiff purchased a quarter section of school land for $760, paying one-tenth cash and receiving a certificate. He paid thereon $41.04 interest December 28, 1908, December 20, 1909, and February 2, 1911. By the strict terms of the statute failure to pay on or before October 21, 1912, worked a forfeiture of the plaintiff’s rights and left th

Opinion by StjraNG, C.: Action for damages for failing to deliver a certain telegraphic message. The facts are as follows: The plaintiff in error was a telegraph company, doing business between St. Joseph, Missouri, and Sabetha, Kansas. The defendants in error were partners, doing business at the latter place, and engaged in shipping hogs. They had purchased of the farmers in the neighborhood o

* Headnotes 1. Judgments, 34 C.J., Section 1331; 2. Improvements, 31 C.J., Section 1; 3. Mortgages, 27 Cyc., p. 1145 (Anno); 4. Executions, 23 C.J., Section 825 (Anno); 5. Sales, 35 Cyc., p. 489 (Anno); 6. Landlord and Tenant, 35 C.J., Section 218 (Anno); 7. Executions, 23 C.J., Section 45; 8. Appeal and Error, 4 C.J., Section 3054; 9. Replevin, 34 Cyc., p. 1387. This cause, in replevin, was tried before the court witho

325 P.2d 1094 (1958) In the Matter of the Habeas Corpus of William LANGLEY, Petitioner. R.B. Travers, Agent of Adult Authority, Department of Corrections, State of California and Bob Turner, Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, Respondents. No. A-12586. Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. May 21, 1958. Hill & May, and James M. May, McAlester, for petitioner.