Cases

*908MEMORANDUM OF OPINION1 ARTHUR I. HARRIS, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE This case is currently before the Court on the Chapter 7 trustee’s objection to the debtor’s claim of exemption (Docket No. 17). At issue is whether the debtor is entitled to an exemption in an estimated $9,000 in child support arrearage under Ohio

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS.. .409 I. INTRODUCTION... 409 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND... 410 A. Federal Program... 410 B. New York State’s Implementation ...411 C. Named Plaintiffs... 413 D.

452 B.R. 597 (2011) In re Anthony ROBERTS, Elita Roberts, Debtors. Michael W. Bush, Plaintiff v. Anthony Roberts, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 10-31154(1)(7). Adversary No. 10-03044. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division. July 6, 2011. *599 C. Dodd Harris, IV, R. Eric Craig, Hayden & Craig, PLLC,

453 B.R. 819 (2011) In re Anthony Roberts, Elita ROBERTS, Debtors. James Atkisson, Plaintiff v. Anthony Roberts, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 10-31154(1)(7). Adversary No. 10-03043. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division. July 6, 2011. *820 R. Eric Craig, Hayden & Craig, PLLC, C. Dodd Harris, IV,

OPINION NAJAM, Judge. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Harry E. Knauff, Jr. and Carolyn R. Knauff appeal the trial court judgment quieting title in certain real property in the names of Nathan T. Hovermale and Sara E. Hovermale following a bench trial. The Knauffs present three issues for review, which we consolidate and restate as whether

In re Harry, Robert R. Jr.;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 411-836; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2001-KA-2336. Denied.

Opinion DUFFY, J. We address in this case whether the evidence was sufficient for the court to find that a prior felony conviction of second degree assault from *1112the State of Washington constituted a strike for purposes of imposing an enhanced punishment under the “Three Strikes” law. This question requires us in turn to determine the admissibilit

419 B.R. 20 (2009) In re John E. ROBERTS, Judy K. Roberts, Debtors. Clyde Hardesty, Trustee, Appellant, v. Citifinancial, Inc., Appellee. In re Honor Friesner, Debtor. William Todd Drown, Trustee, Appellant, v. Citifinancial, Inc., Appellee. Bankruptcy Nos. 09-8020, 09-8021. United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit. Argued: November 4, 2

(2008) GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. HARRY BROWN'S, LLC, Defendant. Civil No. 08-5150 (JRT/AJB). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. December 16, 2008. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge. On September 10, 2008, plaintiff General Motors Corporation ("GM")

666 N.W.2d 477 (2003) 2003 SD 75 Jill Marie ROBERTS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Bart J. ROBERTS, Defendant and Appellant. No. 22440. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs January 15, 2003. Decided July 2, 2003. *478 Sabrina Meierhenry and Jason M. Harris of Danforth, Meierhen

MEMORANDUM KEVIN H. SHARP, District Judge. This dam case involves claims by the United States that Defendants’ creation of an earthen dam and its consequent impoundment of water violates the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. Defendants have filed Motions in Limine regarding the proffered expert testimony of Rodney R. Knight (Docket No. 68); Richard D. Martin (Docket No. 71

612 F.3d 1279 (2010) Richard L. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dawn K. ROBERTS, In Her Official Capacity as Interim Secretary of State of the State of Florida, Defendant-Appellee, Ira William McCollum, Jr., Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee. No. 10-13211. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. July 30, 2010. *1280 Enu

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC15-534 ____________ R. LEE SMITH, et al., Petitioners, vs. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, Respondent. [May 25, 2017] QUINCE, J. This cas

PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge Brian Skender appeals a Jefferson County Circuit Court order dismissing with prejudice his Federal Employers' Liability Act1 (FELA) claim against Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR). He claims that the trial court erred in determining that equitable tolling did not apply to save his claim from the expiration of the statute of limitations. We affirm. This is t

OPINION RHODES, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, and after considering their oral arguments, the Panel determines that the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and its conclusions of law are correct. We therefore affirm the bankruptcy court’s decision for the reasons stated by that court in its well-written opinion entered in Hard

GORMAN, J. [¶ 1] This case involves a dispute over a parcel of land located on the northwest shore of Sebago Lake, referred to here as lot 40A. The plaintiffs, Gary Sleeper, Ramona Sleeper, Richard Roy, and Holly Roy, all of whom own property near but not on Sebago Lake, appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Cole J.) in favor of the

PRESIDING JUSTICE QUINN delivered the opinion of the court: The Cook County Public Guardian appeals the judgment of the circuit court terminating the parental rights of Martha R. and Thomas G., the natural parents of nine-year-old Deandre D. 1 On appeal, the public gu

Fairhurst, J. ¶37 (dissenting) — The legislature has provided an unambiguous mechanism for establishing compensation benefits for claims resulting from progressive hearing loss. While that scheme may not be optimal, the legislature has made its decision about which schedule of benefits will be used. The majority, however, claims the statutory prescriptions are ambiguous and has fashioned its own new rule without statutory authority

JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge: In this action, Appellant Marino, a police officer, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in a jury trial finding him guilty of violating Plaintiff Roberts’ constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After reviewing the record, we find that Marino’s contentions have no merit and affirm the jud

Baker, J. ¶1 Noise-related hearing loss is not a progressive disease, yet it has been referred to as “progressive” in workers’ compensation case law.1 And it is considered to be “partially disabling” long before the worker is perceptibly impaired. These two facts have led to the strange outcome below in this case: a worker is paid for his lost hearing based on a 1974 schedule of benefits for damage t