Cases

Donnelly, J., dissents.

742 F.Supp.2d 68 (2010) Jennifer GRAY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION COMMAND, et al., Defendants. Civ. Action No. 09-1310 (EGS). United States District Court, District of Columbia. September 30, 2010. *70 Mark S. Zaid, Bradley P. Moss, Mark S. Zaid, P.C., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Kathryn Ann

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MICHAEL J. DONNELLY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2018-0892-SG ) KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, ) INC., )

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS <

454 F.Supp.2d 75 (2006) Jesus TORRES, Petitioner, v. Edward R. DONNELLY, Superintendent, Wende Correctional Facility, Respondent. No. 03-CV-6130(VEB). United States District Court, W.D. New York. October 1, 2006. *76 Frank J. Clark, District Attorney of Erie County; Buffalo, NY, for Respondent. Jesus Torres, Attica, NY, Pr

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-08-00398-CR ERIK DONNELLY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 249th District Court Johnson County, Texas Trial Court No. F41816

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Gray v. Kimbler, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3937.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any t

461 F.Supp.2d 112 (2006) Bernard D. ALSTON, Petitioner, v. Edward DONNELLY, Superintendent, Respondent. No. 02-CV-6179(VEB). United States District Court, W.D. New York. November 21, 2006. *113 *114 *115 Bernard D. Alston, Alden, NY, pro se.

HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge, concurring in the result. While I concur with the majority’s result, I am troubled that the majority only briefly references United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) without applying all four prongs of the test announced in that case. Under the First Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution, speech is given broad protections, save for certa

401 F.Supp. 1 (1975) William L. DONNELLY v. BOSTON COLLEGE et al. Civ. A. No. 75-3497-C. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. October 9, 1975. *2 William L. Donnelly, pro se. Terry Seligmann, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boston, Mass., for Chief Justice G. Joseph Tauro. William F. Looney, Jr., Moulton, Looney &

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff William L. Donnelly instituted this action to obtain relief from five Boston law schools for their allegedly unlawful refusal to grant him admission to study law and from the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for his alleged enforcement against plaintiff of Supreme Court Rule 3:01, whic

OPINION ARTHUR J. TARNOW, District Judge. I. Factual and Procedural Background..........................................572 II. The Dellarussiani suit......................................................574 A. Considering the offer of judgment.......................................574 B. Mootness of counts I and II in view of offer of judgment.............

HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge. This case deals with the modern application of a 19th century federal statute designed to protect Indian tribes in land transactions. For reasons explained below, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings. I. BACKGROUND In 1872

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grays Harbor County, No. 94-2-01039-1, David E. Foscue, J., entered December 7, 1995. Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Bridgewater, A.C.J., concurred in by Morgan and Armstrong, JJ.

This is an action brought against Gray Brothers, a copartnership alleged to consist of five members, who are charged by fictitious names, three corporations, and two other defendants charged by fictitious names, for damages to a lot belonging to plaintiff, resulting from certain blasting and *Page 60 grading operations alleged to have been carried on by defendants. The complaint is unverified, and the answer is a general denial. It begins: "Now come the d

RAKER, Judge, concurring, joined by WILNER & HARRELL, JJ.: I join in the opinion of the Court reversing the judgments of conviction and in the concurring opinion of Judge Wilner. The trial court erred in failing to admit testimony regarding Brian Gatton’s statements as declarations against his penal interest pursuant to Maryland Rule 5 — 804(b)(3). The tri

260 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2001) MONICA KNOX, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,v.GRAY DAVIS,* GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, DEFENDANT. AND T. A. TERHUNE, DIRECTOR OF CDC; DAVID TRISTAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ERNEST E. ROE, WARDEN, CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, LANCASTER; MIKE PITOCCO, LITIGATION COORDINATOR AT CSP-LAC, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES. No. 98-55871

PER CURIAM. Upon consideration of the stipulation of counsel for respective parties for affirmance of the judgment of the District Court, and good cause therefor appearing, it is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, that a judgment of affirmance be filed and entered accordingly and the mandate of this court issue forthwith.

946 F.Supp. 147 (1996) Dorothy F. DONNELLY, Gabriele Kass-Simon, Josie P. Campbell v. RHODE ISLAND BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION; University of Rhode Island; University of Rhode Island Chapter of the American Association of University Professors. Civil Action No. 94-408-T. United States District Court, D. Rhode Island. November 26, 1996.

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc BUNKER’S GLASS COMPANY, an ) Arizona Supreme Court Arizona corporation, on Behalf ) No. CV-02-0140-PR of Themselves and All Others ) Similarly Situated, ) Court of Appeals ) Division One Plaintiff-Appellant/) No. 1 CA-CV 01-0046 Respondent,) ) Maricopa County v.