Cases

595 F.Supp.2d 171 (2009) UNITED STATES of America v. John T. FOLEY and Patricia Meshna Foley. Criminal No. 07-10390-RGS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. February 3, 2009. *173 Margaret E. Fox, John Salsberg, Ryan M. Schiff, Salsberg & Schneider, Boston, MA, Joseph J. Machera, Law Offices of Joseph J. Machera,

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2220 ___________________________ David Zink, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant, Michael S. Worthington; John E. Winfield, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs Leon Taylor; Walter T. Storey; Earl Ringo; Roderick N

213 B.R. 317 (1997) In re Everett F. BROWN, Debtor. Everett F. BROWN v. Mike FOLEY, George G. Seelig, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 96-40208(3)7. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Kentucky. September 26, 1997. *318 Russ Wilkey, Owensboro, Ky, for plaintiff/debtor. Douglas Robertson, Bowling Green, KY, for defendant.

WOOD, Chief Judge. The invention of carbonless copy paper by NCR Corporation in the mid-1950s solved a small problem and created a large one. Though it alleviated the messy side effects of carbon paper for those who wanted copies in the pre-photocopy era, over the next quarter-century it became clear that the cost of this convenience was large-scale environmental contamination. That is because, until the early 1970s, the subst

KANNE, Circuit Judge. In 2009, the United States and the State of Wisconsin (“the Governments”) filed suit in federal district court against eleven of the potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) in an environmental cleanup, seeking response costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. (CERCLA).

55 F.3d 873 George JUMARA and Evangelina Jumara, H/W, Appellantsv.STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. No. 94-1447. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Sept. 22, 1994.Decided June 2, 1995. Lee Belfer (argued), Ronald A. Blumfield, P.C., Ronald A. Blumfield, Philadelphia, PA, for appella

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2011-CA-01613-SCT GEORGE WADDELL NEVILLE v. TINA FOLEY (NEVILLE) BLITZ DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/22/2011 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. WILLIAM H. SINGLETARY COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: GEORGE W. NEVILLE A

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 18-1994 LUIS B. SÁNCHEZ, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. JAMES J. FOLEY, individually and as a Massachusetts State Police Officer; MICHAEL A. SWEET, individually and as a Massachusetts State Police Officer; DANIEL T. PURTELL, individually and as a Massachusetts State Police Officer, Defendants, Appe

OPINION OF THE COURT Harvey, J. The constitutionality of Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-c is challenged in these appeals. Petitioner Thomas J. Foley had been employed as a police officer by the City of Schenectady since 1959 when, in 1980, he sustained an injury which prevented him from carrying on his duties. His employer filed an application on his behalf for accidental disability retirement b

776 F.Supp.2d 857 (2011) APPLETON PAPERS INC. and NCR Corp., Plaintiffs, v. GEORGE A. WHITING PAPER CO., et al., Defendants. Case No. 08-C-16. United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. March 1, 2011. *859 Anthony J. Steffek, Brandon J. Evans, Heidi D. Melzer, Michael L. Hermes, Hermes Law Ltd., Green Bay, WI, Dennis P. Birke,

729 F.Supp.2d 371 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Elizabeth B. FOLEY, Defendant. No. 09-cv-478-GZS. United States District Court, D. Maine. August 2, 2010. *372 Evan J. Roth, U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Maine, Portland, ME, for Plaintiff. Sean P. Joyce, Joyce & Joyce LLC, Portland, ME, for Defend

Syllabus by the Court Minn.Stat. § 260.181 , subd. 4(a) (1996), which provides for extension of juvenile court jurisdiction until an individual reaches age 19, applies to children who are subject to juvenile court jurisdiction as children in need of protection or services. OPINION The mother of a child adjudicated in need of protection or services appeals from a juvenile court order

OPINION The question for decision on this appeal is whether, under the facts recited herein, appellants, all of whom are licensed real estate salespersons, are entitled to recover from the Real Estate Recovery Fund established pursuant to TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 6573a, sec. 8 (Vernon Supp. 1982-1983) (Real Estate Act). The pertinent section of this Act provides, generally, that the fund shall be used for the reimbursement of "aggrieved persons" who

884 F.Supp. 329 (1995) Larry GEORGE, Plaintiff, v. SC DATA CENTER, INC., Deneal Erickson, Michael Sullivan, Bureau of Correctional Enterprises, Defendants. No. 94-C-0618-C. United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin. May 2, 1995. Larry George, Waupun, WI, pro se. Michael H. Auen, Foley & Lardner, Madison, WI, for the Swiss Colony and SC Data Center, Inc

629 S.W.2d 401 (1981) STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Latouria FOLEY, Appellant. No. 43471. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three. September 22, 1981. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied November 20, 1981. Application to Transfer Denied January 18, 1982. *402 Josep

744 F.Supp.2d 352 (2010) Susan FOLEY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. No. 2:09-cv-239-GZS. United States District Court, D. Maine. October 4, 2010. *353 Samuel K. Rudman, Ivy Frignoca, Lambert Coffin, Portland, ME, for Plaintiff. Evan J. Roth, U.S. Attorney's Office, Portland, ME, for Defendant. <

226 Wis.2d 381 (1999) 595 N.W.2d 96 W.H. FULLER COMPANY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. George R. SEATER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. No. 98-1250. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. Submitted on briefs March 8, 1999. Decided April 14, 1999. *382 On behalf of the defendant-appellant, the cause was subm

CARNES, Circuit Judge: The Beatles’ taxman told us what we’d see: “There’s one for you, nineteen for me.” 1 But if we really want some funds to free, how soon does asking have to be? Doggerel aside, the issue pre

CORRIGAN, J., Dissenting. I respectfully dissent. If the Legislature wanted Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.171 to apply to anyone who provided care to elderly or dependent adults, whether professionally or otherwise, they simply would have said so. The impact and the import of the repeated use of such terms as “agency,” “office,” “facility,” “school,” “center,” “department,” etc., convey a

*701BROUSSARD, J. I concur in part I of the majority opinion, which holds that plaintiff has not stated a cause of action for discharge in violation of public policy. I join fully in part II of the majority opinion, which upholds plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of contract, but add a note exploring the question of th