Cases

OPINION BY WECHT, J.: , Charles Freeman appeals the June 24, 2014 judgment of sentence. We affirm. On May 5, 2013, Freeman, Andre Collier, Omar Miller, and' Rasheéd Teel de *1236 vised a plan to rob nineteen-year-old Kareem Borowy. Freeman drove the

HOWARD, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Charles and Daniela Freeman appeal the dismissal of their section 1983 suit against the Town of Hudson, Massachusetts, one of its agencies, and several state and local officials. The events giving rise to this suit grew out of an allegation that the Freemans had breached a conservation restriction appurtenant to their Hudson home. Like the magistr

Gkeaney, J. The plaintiffs’ action in the Superior Court alleges that the city of Taunton (Taunton), and the other defendants, in their capacity as public officials and individually, violated the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, G. L. c. 12, § 111 (1994 ed.) (Act), and intentionally interfered with the plaintiffs’ contractual and business relations in connection with the plaintiffs’ efforts to develop property in Taunton. The plai

OPINION SMITH, Circuit Judge. James Freeman recently lost an arbitration dispute. Soon thereafter, he discovered that the arbitrator had received contributions for a judicial campaign from PPG Industries, the defendants’ minority owner. Freeman filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award, but he conveniently failed to mention that the law firm represe

Seibel, J. I. BACKGROUND I accept as true the facts, but not the conclusions or legal arguments, set forth in the Amended Complaint. (Doc. 29 ("AC").) A. Facts 1. The Parties This case involves a dispute among a mortgage loan underwriter, BankUnited, N.A ("BankUnited" or "Plaintiff"); two environmental consulting companie

MEMORANDUM OPINION (February 28, 2017) THIS MATTER is before the Court on a motion filed by Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Litwin Corporation to dismiss the counterclaims Shell Oil Company, a Third-Party Defendant, asserted in its answer to Litwin’s third-party complaint. Litwin sued Shell and other third-party defendants for contribution and indemnification and Shell counterclaimed for the same relief (contribution a

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11974 COMMONWEALTH vs. HARVEY J. BIGELOW. Bristol. January 8, 2

SUPERIOR COURT COMMONWEALTH v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION Docket: 2084CV01954-BLS2 Dates: March 15, 2021 Present: Kenne

JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Rule 59 Motion for New Trial and/or to Alter or Amend the Judgment, filed August 23, 2017 (Doc. 107)("Motion"). The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court clearly erred when it relied on a contract that Plaintiff Ismael Lopez submitted in supplemental briefing in granting Stanley Black & Decker Inc.'s Motion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued May 24, 2017 Decided January 31, 2018 No. 15-1177 PHH CORPORATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, RESPONDENT On Petition for Rehearing En Banc Theodore B. Olson argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs

[J-70-2020] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT BAER, C.J., SAYLOR, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 6 MAP 2020 : Appellee : Appeal from the Order of the : Superior Court dated F

Case: 08-41083 Document: 00511173310 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 14, 2010 No. 08-41083 Lyle W. Cayce

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO REJECT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS AND TO MODIFY RETIREE BENEFITS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §§ 1113, 1114 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE KATHY A. SURRATT-STATES, Chief Judge. The matter before the Court is the Motion to Reject Collective Bargaining Agreements and to Modify Retiree Benefits Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 1113, 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code and the UMWA’s

OPINION Justice McCAFFERY. In this capital appeal, David Chmiel (“Appellant”) challenges the dismissal, following a hearing, of his petition for collateral relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 After careful consideration of Appellant’s arguments, we affirm the PCRA court’s order dismissing his claims. On Septembe

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 507 Brandon Denzel Charleston (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following his convictions for first-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime. Appellant claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and in permitting the Commonwealth to introduce certain

Greaney, J. The plaintiff, Eliot R. Freeman, brought an action in the Superior Court against the town of West Boylston (town), acting through its planning board (board), and certain members of the planning board individually.2 The plaintiff’s action sought damages on the basis of claims that the defendants, in connection with the plaintiff’s efforts to obtain approval of a definitive subdivision plan

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE HUGHES *832Section 170 of the Kentucky Constitution provides in part that "[t]here shall be exempt from taxation ... institutions of purely public charity." This case requires us once again to consider the scope of this "public charity" exemption, and more specifically to decide whether it relieves a qualifying c

OPINION BY GANTMAN, J.: ¶ 1 Appellant, Sunceray B. Pantalion, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas, following her guilty plea to one count each of forgery,1 tampering with record s,2 theft by unlawful taking,3 and theft by deception.4 Appel

961 A.2d 786 (2008) COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Roland William STEELE, Appellant. No. 358 CAP. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted March 27, 2003. Decided December 18, 2008. *792 Noah Matthew Geary, Esq., for Roland William Steele. John C. Pettit, Esq., Amy Zapp, Esq., Washington County

Fabricant, J. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, tenants in a Cambridge apartment building, seek damages against their landlord for alleged violations of the State Sanitary Code and unfair trade practices under G.L.c. 93A. Count I of the complaint alleges violations of provisions of the State Sanitary Code requiring that dwelling units be maintained in such a way as to be weather tight; plaintiffs allege that their