Cases

35 Md. App. 691 (1977) 373 A.2d 273 JOHN HOFMEISTER ET AL. v. THE FRANK REALTY COMPANY. No. 152, September Term, 1976. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. Decided May 11, 1977. The cause was argued before GILBERT, C.J., and MOYLAN and LOWE, JJ. William F.C. Marlow, Jr., with whom was F. Vernon Boozer on the brief, for a

Bramhall, Vice Chancellor: By virtue of an act of the General Assembly of the State of Delaware, 48 Delaware Laws, Chapter 152, after approval by the electors of the City of Newark and the electors of certain additional territory proposed to be annexed, the boundaries of the City of Newark were extended to include a large tract of land, the annexed land being several times the size of the original boundaries of the city

STONE, Judge. The parties entered into a deposit receipt contract for the sale of real estate. Under the terms of the agreement and an addendum, the buyer executed and delivered two promissory notes. The buyer failed to close. Final judgment was entered in favor of the seller. We affirm. See Makris v. Williams, 426 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Alvis v. Investment I, Inc., 504 So.2d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 198

This action was based on a promissory note. The defendant admitted the execution of the note, denied liability and pleaded affirmatively a number of defenses. Over the objection of the defendant, the cause was tried to the court without a jury and resulted in findings of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment sustaining a recovery in the sum of thirteen thousand dollars, together with interest. From this judgment, the defendant appeals. In the fall of 1917, the appellant, respondent,

This was an action by one partner for an accounting as to the partnership transactions. The trial court first tried the question as to whether the plaintiff had a right to an accounting. At the conclusion of this evidence, the court was of the opinion that no such right existed, because there had been a settlement and adjustment of the partnership transactions. Findings of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment were thereupon entered dismissing the action, from which the plaintiff and the de

80 Ariz. 8 (1955) 291 P.2d 786 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. H.T. BOOZER, Appellant. No. 1076. Supreme Court of Arizona. December 13, 1955. *10 F. Preston Sult, Eloy, Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp and John P. Frank, Phoenix, for appellant. Robert Morrison, Atty. Gen., H.B. Daniels, Asst. At

360 S.C. 413 (2004) 602 S.E.2d 51 Richard ADKINS, Shakur Ali, Kelly Ayers, Phillip Barnett, Terry Beachum, Phillip Bennett, Bobby Boozer, John Brannon, Christopher Brown, Norman Bryson, Bernard Byrd, Sirrico Burnside, Bradley Cain, Donnie Clark, Francis Coker, John Cosby, Robert Davila, Billy Joe Davis, Bobby Davis, Terry Elliott, David Ellison, Robert Elmore, Garnell Evans, Anthony Frazier, Calvin Garrett, Charles Gove, Willie Gr

ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, United States District Judge Plaintiffs are twenty-four current or former police officers employed by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (“VA”) at the VA Medical Center in Washington, D.C. 1 who object to the secret installation of audio and video surveillance devices at their place of employment. Cla

[Cite as State v. Hundley, 2018-Ohio-3566.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 106235 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs.

This appeal concerns sales tax assessments on several transactions by Dixie Tool Die Company, Inc. (taxpayer). After an administrative hearing was conducted concerning these transactions, a final assessment of sales tax was issued against the taxpayer. On appeal, the circuit court overruled the Administrative Law Division and found the transactions in question to be exempt from any sales tax. The State of Alabama Department of Revenue (Department) now appeals to this court. The

117 F.Supp.2d 534 (2000) Charles W. EZELL, Plaintiff, v. DAN RIVER INC., et al. Defendants. No. CIV. A. 6:99CV0085. United States District Court, W.D. Virginia. Lynchburg Division. October 4, 2000. *535 *536 Gary M. Coates, Fralin, Feinman, Coates & Kinnier, P.C., Lynchburg, VA, for Charli

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 276 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 277 {¶ 1} In Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296,124 S.Ct

Opinion issued November 10, 2004 In The Cmsri nf Appsala For The Jurat Sfairfrt of ^ma NO. 01-03-00783-CR MIKE MENDOZA, JR., Appellant THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from 262nd District Court Harris County, Texas T

806 S.W.2d 540 (1990) Craig William REEVES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 249-88. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc. September 12, 1990. Rehearing Overruled January 30, 1991. Danny D. Burns, Fort Worth, for appellant. Tim Curry, Dist. Atty., and C. Chris Marshall and David L. Richards, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Wort

Naman is a retail grocer who sells food to nursing homes which house and feed Medicaid recipients pursuant to an agreement between the nursing homes and the State. The nursing homes are reimbursed for services rendered to Medicaid patients on a direct cost-basis by the Medical Services Administration, Department of Public Health. The Commissioner of Revenue contends that the sale of food by Naman to the nursing homes is a sale at retail and is therefore subject to the State sal

141 F.Supp.2d 88 (2001) AMERICAN BIOSCIENCE, INC. Plaintiff, v. Tommy G. THOMPSON, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 00-2247 CKK. United States District Court, District of Columbia. April 19, 2001. *89 *90 Arthur YaShih Tsien, Olsson, Frank & Weeda, P.C., Washington, DC, Joseph F. Coyne, Shep

BLOOM, Judge. The State’s Attorney for Anne Arundel County filed a two count information charging appellant, Gregorio Aldape Cortez, with “Assault and Battery” (Count I) and Fourth Degree Sexual Offense (Count II). At a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, appellant was convicted of a fourth degree sexual offense and battery.1 The court imposed the maximum prison sentence, one

RICHARD L. WILLIAMS, District Judge: This case involves a six count indictment brought against four defendants for bid rigging a sewer construction project in Lancaster County, South Carolina. The Farmers Home Administration funded the four part sewer project. Defendant Herbert P. Lee, III is an employee of

206 Md. 392 (1955) 111 A.2d 661 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. STATE TAX COMMISSION [No. 90, October Term, 1954.] Court of Appeals of Maryland. Decided February 23, 1955. The cause was argued before BRUNE, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ. Theodore C. Waters and William B. Rafferty, with whom

BURDICK, Chief Justice. On July 12, 1995, AIA Services Corporation (AIA Services) entered into a Stock Redemption Agreement with Appellant Reed Taylor to purchase all of his shares (613,494 shares) in AIA Services for a $1.5 million down payment promissory note, a $6 million promissory note and other consideration. Reed Taylor is the founder of AIA Insurance, Inc. (AIA Insuranc