Cases

134 Cal.App.3d 451 (1982) 184 Cal. Rptr. 597 In re the Marriage of RUTH P. and LEWIS L. FENTON. LEWIS L. FENTON, Appellant, v. RUTH P. FENTON, Appellant. Docket No. 47290. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two. July 30, 1982. *456 COUNSEL Robert H. Ames and Pioda, Bryan &a;

Mr. Chief Justice Cartwright delivered the opinion of the court: John Tice died at his home in Petersburg, Menard county, on November 22, 1904, leaving a last will and testament, which was admitted to probate on January 22, 1905. He left no widow, child, descendant, father or mother, and his heirs-at-law were his brother, Anderson W. Tice; his sister, Amanda J.

BEAN, District Judge. This case was submitted some months ago. Its decision has been delayed waiting briefs which the court understood counsel desired to file. No briefs have been submitted, and, as more than a reasonable time for filing the same has elapsed, it is assumed that none will be. The suit was commenced in June, 1910, to enjoin and restrain the defendant company from maintaining four certain dikes

Mr. Justice Cartwright delivered the opinion of the court: The county collector of Whiteside "county applied to the county court of said county for judgments against delinquent lands for taxes of 1910. The appellants, four railroad companies, filed objections, which were overruled and judgments were entered, with orders of sale. The appellants each excepted and prayed for and

[1] These proceedings are to review an order of a Judge of the Workers Compensation Court which combined an injured workman's wages from two different and dissimilar *Page 860 employments to determine the claimant's rate of compensation. [2] Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the trial court and we Grant Certiorari. [3] The case was presented to the trial judge on a written stipulation of fact. The essentials gleaned from the sti

254 Cal.App.2d 316 (1967) JEAN V. GAGOSIAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BURDICK'S TELEVISION & APPLIANCES et al., Defendants and Appellants. Civ. No. 23926. California Court of Appeals. First Dist., Div. Three. Sept. 14, 1967. Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel and John I. Horton for Defendants and Appellants. Cartwright, Saroyan, Martin & Sucherma

PER CURIAM. After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R. App.P. 34(a); Tenth Cir.R. 10(e). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This is an appeal

429 F.Supp.2d 888 (2006) Sharon MACY, Plaintiff v. HOPKINS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant. Civil Action No. 4:01CV-00195-ERG. United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, at Owensboro. May 1, 2006. *889 *890 *891 Brent Thomas Ackerson, Ackerson &

24 Cal.App.3d 571 (1972) 101 Cal. Rptr. 120 AMEL DRINNON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FRANK THOMAS OLIVER, Defendant and Appellant; ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervener and Respondent. Docket No. 28109. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two. March 21, 1972. *574 COUNSEL Tunn

745 S.W.2d 824 (1988) Sally Ann HARRY, Appellant, v. Jerry David HARRY, Respondent. No. 52022. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One. February 23, 1988. *825 Marsha Brady, Hillsboro, for appellant. Michael J. McAvoy, Fenton, for respondent. GARY M. GAERTNER, Presiding Judge. Sally Ann Harr

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 426 OPINION This case presents the question whether a public entity retains its statutory immunity from liability for injury caused by the plan or design of a construction of, or an improvement to, public property where the plan or design, although approved in advance as being safe, nevertheless

25 Cal.3d 707 (1979) 602 P.2d 755 159 Cal. Rptr. 835 DENNIS DUCEY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ARGO SALES COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent; THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Appellant. Docket No. S.F. 23931. Supreme Court of California. November 21, 1979. *710 COUNSEL

920 P.2d 122 (1996) Jeff KIRKPATRICK, Appellant, v. The CHRYSLER CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Appellee. No. 81604. Supreme Court of Oklahoma. June 18, 1996. Rehearing Denied July 19, 1996. *124 Michael D. Parks, Parks & Wiley, McAlester, for Appellant. Stephen Peterson and Michael S. McMillin, F

260 Cal.App.2d 528 (1968) H. J. ABBOTT et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. No. 837. California Court of Appeals. Fifth Dist., Mar. 27, 1968. King, Eyherabide, Cooney & Owen, Robert E. King and Henry F. Walker for Defendant and Appellant. Mayall, Hu

* Review granted January 14, 2009 (S168611). On March 11, 2009, review dismissed and opinion ordered to be published by the Supreme Court. [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 802 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE

Mr. Justice Cartwright delivered the opinion of the court: The appellants, Algie P. Gulick and Seeley C. Gulick, filed their bill in the circuit court of Champaign county to enjoin the appellee, Charles Fenton Hamilton, from obstructing an alleged alley on the west io feet of lot 12, in block 7, in Farnham, Clark & White’s addition to Urbana, (now a part of

Mr. Justice Cartwright delivered the opinion of the court: The defendants in error, Algie P. Gulick and Seeley C. Gulick, filed their bill in the. circuit court of Champaign county to enjoin the plaintiff in error, Charles Fenton Hamilton, from obstructing an alleged alley on the west ten feet of lot 12, in block 7, in Farnham, Clark & White’s addi

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE ORDERS DENYING CLASS CERTIFICATION AND LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM SUMMARY JUDGMENT LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. Plaintiffs Sarah Perez, Michelle Laekney, Rachel Stewart, and Rachel Hardyek (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this putative class action against Defendants State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), Alstate In

8 Cal.3d 229 (1972) 502 P.2d 1 104 Cal. Rptr. 505 RALPH COBBS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DUDLEY F.P. GRANT, Defendant and Appellant. Docket No. S.F. 22887. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. October 27, 1972. *233 COUNSEL McNamara, Lewis & Craddick, Marrs A. Craddic

ALMA WILSON, Justice. Pursuant to the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S.1981, §§ 1601 et seq., the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma certified the following question to this Court: “Is economic compulsion or economic duress recognized as an independent tort under Oklahoma law?” This question of law arises out of al