Cases

OPINION & ORDER Andrew J. Peck, United States Magistrate Judge Plaintiff Ernest Dickens brings this action against Hudson Sheraton Corporation, Tom Mituzas, Orlando Trinidad, Geoffrey Horner and Jordain Francois for their alleged violation of various anti-discrimination laws. {See generally Dkt. No. 22: 2d Am. Compl.) Dickens previously dismissed his second, third, sixth and sevent

Matyas v Spitzer (2025 NY Slip Op 04168) Matyas v Spitzer 2025 NY Slip Op 04168 Decided on July 16, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorre

12 N.Y.3d 236 (2009) ___ N.E.2d ___ ___ N.Y.S.2d ___ KERUSA CO. LLC, Respondent, v. W10Z/515 REAL ESTATE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP et al., Appellants. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. Argued February 12, 2009. Decided April 2, 2009. *237 Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C.

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 05-4577 MAGDALENE M. SMOOT and RYAN M. SMOOT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MAZDA MOTORS OF AMERICA, INC. and TOKIO MARINE AND FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Defendants-Appellees. ____________ A

POSNER, Circuit Judge. The district judge, after barring the plaintiffs’ expert from testifying, dismissed this diversity personal-injury suit (the substantive issues in which are governed by Wisconsin law) on the ground that without expert testimony the plaintiffs could not prove their case. Before reviewing that ruling, we remark the confusion in the parties’ briefs concerning the elements of the diversi

90 Wis.2d 332 (1979) 279 N.W.2d 918 Lloyd CHRISTIANSON, and another, and Wayne H. Rusch as Special Administrator for Michelle Christianson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DOWNS, Defendant-Respondent.[†] No. 76-491. Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Argued May 30, 1979. Decided June 29, 1979. *333

QUINN, Justice. We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals’ decision in Guzman v. Gleason, Colo.App., 598 P.2d 145 (1979), which addressed the issue of mistake in connection with the execution of a guardian’s release for his daughter’s personal injury claim. The trial court had granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that any mistake in the execution of the release was a unilatera

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (2022 NY Slip Op 05127) Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a 2022 NY Slip Op 05127 Decided on September 1, 2022 Appellate Division, Third Department Published

Hugh R. Elwyn, J. The petitioner, Franklin Pierce, the acknowledged father of an illegitimate child, seeks to have defined and enforced his asserted right to visitation with his five-year-old daughter, which right the mother has, for the past year and a half, adamantly refused to recognize. Custody of the child is not at issue. What is at issue is whether through de-emphasis of parental rights (see Finlay

43 Cal.4th 757 (2008) In re MARRIAGE CASES. [Six consolidated appeals.][1] No. S147999. Supreme Court of California. May 15, 2008. *765 Alliance Defense Fund, Benjamin W. Bull, Glen Lavy, Timothy Donald Chandler, Christopher R. Stovall, Dale Schowengerdt; Advocates for Faith and Freedom, Robert Henry Tyler; Law Offices of Terr

FRANK, Circuit Judge (concurring). 1. .Plaintiff, as a result of a railroad accident which occurred while he was working as an employee of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, suffered personal injuries which turned out to be so serious that the jury returned a verdict in his favor for $7,500, which the Railroad Company does not contest — except on one gro