Cases

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. ----------------------------------------------------------------- No. 82 The People &c., Respondent, v. Sean Garvin, Appellant. Tammy E. Linn, for appellant. Danielle S. Fenn, for respondent. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al., amici curiae. STEIN, J.: In this case, we are asked to overrule our prior

Judge Harold R. Banke. Mary Margaret Smith filed an action against James S. Garvin primarily seeking declaratory relief concerning her right to sell a certain tract of real estate.1 Garvin appeals the summary judgment awarded to Smith. In August 1990, Smith sold two of three contiguous tracts to Garvin but retained title to a third one, Tract III. By a separate agreement dated

44 N.J. 268 (1965) 208 A.2d 402 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM F. GARVIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued January 5, 1965. Decided March 22, 1965. *271 Mr. Andrew L. Kaufman argued the cause for appellant. Mr. John G. Graham, Assistan

337 S.C. 436 (1999) 523 S.E.2d 481 Linda GARVIN, Appellant, v. BI-LO, INC., Respondent. No. 3057. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Submitted October 5, 1999. Decided October 18, 1999. Rehearing Denied December 25, 1999. *438 Thomas R. Goldstein, of Belk, Cobb, Infinger

Soukup v. Garvin CV-09-146-JL 8/25/10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE William Soukup v. Civil No. 09-CV-146-JL Opinion No. 2010 DNH 154 Robert Garvin and the Town of Lisbon O R D E R This case challenges an arrest on bail violation and disorderly conduct charges as lacking in probable cause

455 F.3d 125 MARTHA GRAHAM SCHOOL AND DANCE FOUNDATION, INC., and Ronald Protas, individually and as Trustee of the Martha Graham Trust, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants,v.MARTHA GRAHAM CENTER OF CONTEMPORARY DANCE, INC., and Martha Graham School Of Contemporary Dance, Inc., Defendants-Counterclaimants-Appellees,Eliot L. Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee.

LOUIS F. OBERDORFER, District Judge. This case marks the third chapter in this court of the dispute as to who is the rightful owner of the works of the renowned modern dancer Martha Graham, who died in 1991 at the age of 96. Previously this court largely affirmed the district court ruling that during her lifetime Graham transferred the rights to almost all of her works to the Martha Graham Center, but remanded the question of

LOUIS F. OBERDORFER, District Judge. This case marks the third chapter in this court of the dispute as to who is the rightful owner of the works of the renowned modern dancer Martha Graham, who died in 1991 at the age of 96. Previously this court largely affirmed the district court ruling that during her lifetime Graham transferred the rights to almost all of her works to the Martha Graham Center, but remanded the question o

41 Wn.2d 845 (1953) 252 P.2d 313 HALLIE C. GRAHAM, Respondent, v. JOHN GRAHAM, Appellant.[1] No. 32202. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two. January 15, 1953. Wright, Booth & Beresford and Jones, Birdseye & Grey, for appellant. Tanner, Garvin & Ashley, for respondent. FINLE

38 Wn.2d 796 (1951) 232 P.2d 100 HALLIE C. GRAHAM, Respondent, v. JOHN GRAHAM, Appellant.[1] No. 31585. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department One. May 31, 1951. Jones, Birdseye & Grey and Wright, Booth & Beresford, for appellant. Tanner, Garvin & Ashley, for respondent. BEALS, J.

SECOND DIVISION MILLER, P. J., MERCIER and COOMER, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules May 28, 20

MESKILL, Circuit Judge: Petitioner-appellant David Warren was convicted by a jury of .murder in the second degree and two robbery counts in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County. His conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division, and he was denied leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York on September 19, 1990. His conviction became final on December 18, 1

406 P.2d 460 (1965) GARVIN COUNTY and the State Insurance Fund, Petitioners, v. R. Marvin PIERCE, Administrator of the Estate of Silas B. Collins, deceased, and the State Industrial Court of the State of Oklahoma, Respondents. No. 41249. Supreme Court of Oklahoma. August 3, 1965. Rehearing Denied October 5, 1965. Sam Hill, Guy Secor, Moraul Bosonett

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Willard, A. J. The only question before us comes up on the appeal in behalf of the Royal Bank of Liverpool from the Circuit decree, and involves the right of the petitioners to have their drafts *274paid out of the proceeds of the securities in question in preference to the claims of the Royal Bank to such securiti

Judge HIRT dissents. *Page 141 Argued April 17, 1947. Plaintiff brought this action in trespass against the City of Pittsburgh to recover damages for injuries sustained as the result of a fall on a defective sidewalk. The city brought upon the record as additional defendant the owner of the property adjoining the sidewalk where plaintiff was injured. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $2,000 against both defendan

Two reasons appear why the record in this case presents no question for review. First. The errors assigned in the main require an examination of the evidence introduced at the trial in the court below. The case-made contains no recital that it contains "all the evidence" introduced at the trial, and an examination of it shows affirmatively that it does not contain all the evidence. It appears that a certain written statement of account and certain time checks that were material in esta

Motion for new trial, having been filed in due time, was overruled on May 29, 1911. The court on said date also made the following order: "And defendants are given by the court, in open court, ninety days to make, then ten days for plaintiff to suggest amendments and five days to settle a case-made for the Supreme Court and sixty days thereafter to file same, with petition in error, in the Supreme Court." Plaintiffs would not be required to suggest amendments until the case-made

STALEY, Circuit Judge. This is a seaman’s action at law for damages for the consequences of the alleged negligent failure of defendant to provide maintenance and cure or, more specifically, to provide an operation to correct a ventral hernia: 1 After his evidence was in, plaintiff’s case was dismissed, and this appeal r

The opinion of the court was delivered by Thompson, J. We have a very unsatisfactory report of the evidence in this case, and no draft of adjoining surveys, or of the supposed interfering survey. A full and accurate presentation in these particulars, would have been valuable aids in this examination. As we have them, however, only in deficient form, we must dispose of the question raised by the best lights in o

368 F.3d 356 Debra GARIETY; Horst O. Bischoff, as Trustee of Bischoff Family Trust; Pamela Hanyzewki; John J. Cline; Thomas Allen, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated; Thomas J. Shannon, Jr., as Trustee, Natural Parent and Guardian of; SMV Holding Company, PLL; Vincent Paul; Charles Thornton, Individually and as Trustee, SEP; Fred L. Millner; Warren H. Hyde; Caryl Hyde; Teen Response, Incorporated; Elizabeth B. Sponseller; M