Cases

395 F.2d 508 68-1 USTC P 9394 UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,v.W. B. and Edna B. WILLIAMS, Appellees. No. 24416. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. May 24, 1968. Floyd M. Buford, U.S. Atty., Macon, Ga., Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard C. Pugh, Lee A. Jackso

427 F.2d 279 70-1 USTC P 9423 UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,v.Edna GENERES, Wife of, and Allen H. Generes, Appellees. No. 25713. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. May 25, 1970. Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Meyer Rothwacks, William A. Friedla

HARRISON, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. *436In this case we determine whether the Industrial Commission of Virginia erred in finding that certain medical treatments accorded to and surgery performed on Edna Pugh Daniels, claimant, constituted necessary medical attention under Code § 65.1-88. On January 27, 1976, Daniels, in

841 N.E.2d 584 (2006) VILLAS WEST II OF WILLOWRIDGE, Homeowners Association, Inc., Appellant-Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, v. Edna McGLOTHIN, Appellee-Defendant/Cross-Claimant. No. 34A02-0504-CV-370. Court of Appeals of Indiana. January 30, 2006. *588 Jeremy A. Peelle, McCann & Peelle, Kokomo, P. Thomas Murry, Jr., Eads Murray &

| j CARAWAY, J. We granted supervisory writs to review the trial court’s denial of the defendant-physician’s exception of prescription. Af*723ter a mammogram was taken in 1992 revealing the need to biopsy a lump in plaintiffs breast, the defendant did not relate the need for the biopsy to plaintiff. Later, after more than three years passed with no further treatment b

512 Pa. 266 (1986) 516 A.2d 672 Jane MAZZAGATTI and Amini Mazzagatti, a minor by Jane Mazzagatti, her parent and natural guardian and Peter Mazzagatti, Appellants, v. Ricky Allen EVERINGHAM, a minor by Ned EVERINGHAM, his parent and natural guardian and Rickie C. Everingham and Ned Everingham and Whitpain Township and Robert Harris and Edna Harris, Appellees. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.</

907 F.Supp. 1231 (1995) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Christopher Richard MESSINO and Clement Messino, Defendants. No. 93 CR 294. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. December 13, 1995. L. Felipe Sanchez, United States Attorney's Office, Chicago, Illinois, for Plaintiff. Marc William Martin, Genson, Steinback & Gillespi

855 F.Supp. 973 (1994) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Christopher R. MESSINO, Clement A. Messino, Michael Homerding, Donald Southern, William Underwood, Christopher B. Messino, Blaise Messino, Paul Messino, Thomas Hauck, Gray Chrystall, Daniel Shoemaker, and Lawrence Thomas, Defendants. No. 93 CR 294. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. June

842 F.Supp. 1107 (1994) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Christopher R. MESSINO, Blaise Messino and Paul Messino, et al., Defendants. No. 93 CR 294. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. January 28, 1994. *1108 L. Felipe Sanchez, U.S. Attorney's Office, Chicago, IL, for plaintiff. Marc William Martin, Ge

852 F.Supp. 652 (1994) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Christopher Richard MESSINO, Blaise Messino, et al., Defendants. No. 93 CR 294. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. May 9, 1994. *653 L. Felipe Sanchez, U.S. Attorney's Office, Chicago, IL, for plaintiff. Marc William Martin, Genson,

871 F.Supp. 1027 (1994) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Christopher Richard MESSINO, Clement A. Messino, Daniel C. Shoemaker, et al., Defendants. No. 93 CR 294. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. December 19, 1994. *1028 Marc William Martin, Genson, Steinback & Gillespie, Chicago, IL, for C

855 F.Supp. 955 (1994) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Christopher R. MESSINO, Clement A. Messino, Michael Homerding, Donald Southern, William Underwood, Christopher B. Messino, Blaise Messino, Paul Messino, Thomas Hauck, Gary Chrystall, Daniel Shoemaker, and Lawrence Thomas, Defendants. No. 93 CR 294. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. June

MARTIN, Circuit Judge. In this action, brought by Mrs. Edna V. Bailey for damages for personal injuries, a judgment for $30,000 on the verdict of a jury was entered in the district court, against both defendants, the City of Knoxville and Delta Air. Lines, Inc., now appellants. The judgment, is' unusual in form, in that it expressly p

281 S.E.2d 847 (1981) INSURANCE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF TIDEWATER/BALDWIN BROTHERS & TAYLOR, and Continental Insurance Company v. Edna Pugh DANIELS. Record No. 801000. Supreme Court of Virginia. September 11, 1981. Charles F. Midkiff, Richmond (Christian, Barton, Epps, Brent & Chappell, Richmond, on briefs), for appellants. Palmer S. Rutherford, Jr.

ORDER ALESIA, District Judge. On June 24, 1994, the court granted defendant Lawrence Thomas’ motion for determination of mental competency to stand trial. 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). Accordingly, the court ordered that defendant Thomas undergo psychiatric and psychological examinations at the Isaac Ray Center. On December 12, 1994, the court received a report of an evaluation o

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ALESIA, District Judge. Before the court are (1) the Government’s Supplemental Santiago Proffer on the Superseding Indictment (“Supplemental Proffer”), see United States v. Santiago, 582 F.2d 1128 (7th Cir.1978), as well as various motions related to Santiago issues, or arising out of evidence discussed in the Supplemental Proffer; and (2)

ORDER ALESIA, District Judge. Before the court are issues as to conflict of interest on the part of attorneys representing defendants Christopher Richard Messino and William Underwood. I. THE CONFLICT AT ISSUE Attorneys Edward M. Genson and Terrence P. Gillespie represent defendant Underwood. Marc W. Martin represents defendant Christopher Richard Mes

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ALESIA, District Judge. Before the court are two pretrial matters pertaining to defendant Christopher Richard Messino. First is the government’s motion to reconsider the court’s order dismissing the forfeiture allegations in the indictment, 855 F.Supp. 955. Second is the government’s motion to vacate the hearing regarding the seizure at Christopher Richard Messino’s

Judgment rendered March 11, 2026. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 56,755-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA ***** PATRICIA FLOWERS,

OPINION PER CURIAM. This case was referred to Trial Commissioner Herbert N. Maletz with directions to make findings of fact and recommendation for conclusions of law. The commissioner has done so in a report and opinion filed on November 28, 1966. Plaintiff excepted to the commissioner’s report and opinion only