Cases

500 F.3d 444 (2007) GENERAL UNIVERSAL SYSTEMS, INC.; World Trade Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Jose S. Lopez, Plaintiff-Intervenor Defendant-Appellant, Eli Nassar, Third Party Defendant-Appellant, v. HAL, INC.; et al., Defendants, HAL, Inc.; Joe R. Herrin; Ernest Allen Parkin, Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellees, Panalpina, Inc.; Fritz Companies, Inc.; Global Southport Services, Inc.; United States Crating, Inc.; T

196 B.R. 159 (1996) In re HAL, INC.; Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.; and West Maui Airport, Inc., Debtors. HAL, INC.; Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.; and West Maui Airport, Inc., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. BAP No. HI-95-1354-JVO. Bankruptcy Nos. 93-01072, 93-01073 and 93-01074. United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: Hawaiian Airlines appeals a ruling of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirming a bankruptcy judge’s granting of a setoff to various agencies of the United States under 11 U.S.C. § 553 on the ground that the agencies constituted a- unitary creditor for purposes of the Bankruptcy Act. We affirm. I. On Sept

379 F.3d 131 GENERAL UNIVERSAL SYSTEMS, INC.; World Trade Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants,Jose S. Lopez; Plaintiff-Intervenor Defendant-Appellant,Eli Nassar, Third Party Defendant-Appellant,v.Larry Mason LEE; Larry Mason Lee & Associates, Intervenor Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.HAL, Inc.; et al., Defendants,HAL, Inc.; Joe R. Herrin; Ernest Allen Parkin, Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellees,Panalpina, Inc.;

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of - ) ) Hal Hays Construction, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 63141, 63142, 63526 ) Under Contract No. N62473-12-D-0258 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Sean Dowsing, Esq. Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Treste

[Cite as Makrauer v. Hal Homes, Inc., 2020-Ohio-945.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO ZOLA S. MAKRAUER, : APPEAL NO. C-190256 TRIAL NO. A-1806326 Plaintiff-Appellant, : O P I N I O N.

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT HAL MILLER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) WD82265 ) SECURITAS SECURITY ) Opinion filed: August 27, 2019 SERVICES USA INC, ET AL.,

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered May 1, 2012, which, in this personal injury action arising from a trip and fall on a sidewalk abutting defendant landowner’s property, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Defendant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting its administrative mana

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered May 1, 2012, which, in this personal injury action arising from a trip and fall on a sidewalk abutting defendant landowner’s property, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Defendant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting its administrative mana

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the Rockland County Department of Health dated November 13, 2013, which, in effect, adopted the findings and recommendations of a hearing officer of the Rockland County Department of Health dated October 14, 2013, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner violated certain provisions of articles XI and XIII of the Rockl

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 06-2579 HAL D. HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. ____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Di

862 N.E.2d 1292 (2007) HAL-MARK RENTAL CENTER, INC. v. SENTRY SELECT INS. CO. No. 76A03-0606-CV-245. Court of Appeals of Indiana. March 16, 2007. BAKER, C.J. Affirmed. DARDEN, J. Concurs. ROBB, J. Concurs.

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ Nos. 06-2186 & 07-1433 HAL D. HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., and HARRIS INVESTOR SERVICES, LLC, also known as CFSBdirect, Defendants-Appellees. ____________ Appeals fr

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 05-4523 HAL D. HICKS, Cross-Claim Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MIDWEST TRANSIT, INC., and DONALD HOAGLAND, as Interim Receiver of Midwest Transit, Inc., Cross-Claim Defendants-Appellees. ____________ Appeal from the United States District Court

Judgment rendered June 26, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 55,623-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA ***** HAL CARTER AND DREAM

OPINION Opinion by Justice Bridges Appellants Hal Crews and Debra Leitch, as fifty-percent shareholders in DKASI Corporation, filed a shareholder oppression suit against appellees Debra and David Holley and ASI Gymnastics, Inc. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment regarding the interpretation and enforcement of a Rul

KANNE, Circuit Judge. Hal D. Hicks appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Midwest Transit, Inc. on his claims of breach with regard to a promissory note and a revolving line of credit. The district court held that res judicata precluded Hicks’s claims based upon an Illinois state court judgment. We agree. I. Backgro

ACCEPTED 05-14-00544-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 5/11/2015 10:04:41 AM

KLEIN, Judge. Appellant, a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure, appeals an order awarding its former law firm attorney’s fees through a lien on the property which was the subject of the foreclosure, arguing that the trial court improperly included work performed by the discharged law firm in getting a bankruptcy stay lifted- We affirm. Appellant argues that the bankruptcy was a separate matter, and rel

KLEIN, Judge. The appehant law firm withdrew while representing a chent in a foreclosure suit and was granted a charging hen for attorney’s fees against the property which was the subject of the suit. Prior to the foreclosure sale of the property, the chent, who was appealing the law firm’s hen, moved the court to transfer the hen created by the final judgment to a bond pursuant to section 55.10(6), Florida Statutes (1995)