Cases

911 N.E.2d 1201 (2009) FIRST HEALTH GROUP CORP., a wholly owned subsidiary of Coventry Health Care, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard E. RUDDICK, Defendant-Appellee. No. 1-08-3236. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division. July 6, 2009. *1204 Jeffrey C. Clark, Julie Ann Sullivan, McGuire Woods LLP, Chicago,

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 30 This is an appeal from a decree in equity setting aside the foreclosure of a mortgage and ordering appellant to release certain realty from a mortgage. In 1955, Gulf Development Company (hereinafter referred to as Gulf) approached one Otto Neese and proposed that he purchase a plot of unimproved land i

PER CURIAM. [1-3] Hearings before administrative bodies, like the immigration authorities, are not subject to the rules governing judicial proceedings. The alien must be given a fair hearing, but the hearing may be summary. Hearsay evidence is admissible, and the findings of fact by the commissioners conclusive, if there is any evidence to support them. In re Diamond (C. C. A.) 266 Fed. 34; In re Rakics (

KNOX, District Judge. The defendant Bloom was heretofore brought to trial, and acquitted, upon an indictment which, in one count thereof, charged him and his codefendants, Rachmil, Samuelson, and Rosenblum, with having conspired to defraud the United States; another count of the indictment charged as against the persons named a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, to wit, an attempt willfully to defeat and

Laughlin, J., concurred. Judgment modified as indicated in opinion, and as modified affirmed, with costs to respondents. Order to be settled on notice

MCCLELLAN, J. I concur, in the result flowing from the opinion of the Chief Justice, viz., the affirmance of the judgment of the circuit court. I also' concur in the 'conclusion reached by him that section 17 of Article VI of the Constitution has no relation to appointments to fill vacancies in the office of judge of the City Court of Montgomery; and this both upon the considerations adverted to by him, and up

CLARK, Chief Judge: Louis Koerner brought two appeals to this court which we consolidated for argument. The first appeal, No. 85-3341, seeks to reverse the district court’s interim order rejecting his constitutional challenge to the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-353, *

The report of Commissioner Van Vechten Veeder on damages is as follows: Pursuant to the interlocutory decree in this cause I have taken proofs as to the amount, validity, and priority of all claims, and I submit herewith my report thereon, both in respect of the claims for death and with regard to the damages sustained by the United States as owner of submarine S-51. On the night of September 25, 1925, some twelve

MOORMAN, Circuit Judge. The Willys Corporation was organized under the laws of Delaware. In 1921 it was placed in the hands of federal court receiv*854ers both in Delaware and Ohio. The Ohio receivers opened a deposit account in the commercial department of the Ohio Savings Bank & Trust Company, In April of 1926 they caused the account to be transferred to the tru

The third plea was subject to the objection taken by the demurrers, that it does not show that the board of commissioners of roads and revenue of Mobile county had jurisdiction over the road in question, or colorable jurisdiction which fairly called for the exercise of judgment with respect thereto, and that the action of the board involved an affirmative decision that the board had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the person, and that the members of the board determined in good fait

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. The plaintiffs in error (hereinafter called defendants) have been convicted upon an indictment which in the first count charged them with having unlawfully conspired to apply to their own use certain property of the United States, and in the second count charged that they unlawfully conspired to sell, convey, and dispose of the same property. The indictment is based on the following provisions of the Crimina

ERVIN, District Judge. On a bill filed in June, 1932, against the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company by a general creditor, a receiver was appointed by the’ Court to take charge of and operate the railroad- because of its insolvency, and to protect and preserve the property. The receivers continued to operate it until August, 1940. About Í938, negotiations looking to a reorganization of the railroad began a

MAYER, District Judge. This is a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of the detention of Walter Alexander (hereinafter called relator, or Alexander), granted upon the petition of Thomas F Gilroy, Jr., as a friend of Alexander. The return statqs that Alexander is’ *111held in custody as a German alien enemy, pursuant to the presidential warrant duly issued und

MANTON, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above). [1] The power of a circuit judge to issue a writ of habeas corpus is questioned by a motion to dismiss. I have held heretofore that a circuit judge has such power. In re David Lamar (C. C. A.) 274 Fed. 160. Nothing has been submitted in this proceeding which causes me to change ¡lie views there expressed. Further, at the time of the issuance of tin

OPINION David Puryear, Justice In three separate lawsuits, several hundred individuals sued Asplundh Tree Expert Co. (“Asplundh”) seeking damages stemming from the devastating 2011 Bas-trop County Complex Fire. In response, Asplundh filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the suits were untimely because they were filed past the two-year statute of limitations. After convening a hearing on the moti