Cases

Opinion O’ROURKE, J. The People appeal from an order granting in part the Penal Code1 section 995 motions of defendants and respondents Lavem Johnson and Purcell Johnson to dismiss certain counts of a 149-count indictment charging them with criminal offenses in connection with their operation of “T-Town,” a nonprofit group home. In the indictment, defendants were charged with cons

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No. 180] Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel, United States District Judge Before the Court is Defendant Donald J. Trump’s (“Defendant”) motion for summary judgment. Defendant’s Motion..for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment (“Def. Mot.”), ECF No. 180. The motio

Kaufman v Kaufman (2020 NY Slip Op 05732) Kaufman v Kaufman 2020 NY Slip Op 05732 Decided on October 14, 2020 Appellate Division, Second Department Scheinkman, P.J., J. Published by

SPATT, District Judge: On April 25, 2018, Susan Hansen ("Hansen" or the "Plaintiff") commenced this action against Michele DeSanti ("DeSanti"), Christina Dehoyos ("Dehoyos"), Karen Sylvester ("Sylvester"), John Valentine ("Valentine"), James Lee ("Lee"), James Garcia ("Garcia"), Kevin McPadden ("McPadden"), and Lisa M. Inzerillo ("Inzerillo") (together, the "Individual Defendants"), and the Town of Smithtown (the "Town") (together w

*581OPINION REBECCA BEACH SMITH, CHIEF JUDGE This matter comes before the court on the Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence (“Motion”), filed by David Anthony Runyon (“Petitioner”) on February 4, 2016. ECF No. 511.1 Further before the court are the Petitioner’s First Motion for Discover

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHINA UNICOM (AMERICAS) No. 22-70029 OPERATIONS LIMITED, Petitioner, OPINION v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Communications Commission Argued and Submitted February 15, 2023

EFiled: Sep 13 2022 08:00AM EDT Transaction ID 68091845 Case No. 2021-0619-JTL IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE XRI INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) )

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE XRI INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2021-0619-JTL ) GREGORY A. HOLIFIELD and GH BLUE ) HOLDINGS, LLC, )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 30, 2014 Session VALERIE BRIDGEFORTH v. DALE JONES ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 09C740 Thomas W. Brothers, Judge No. M2013-01500-COA-R3-CV - Filed January 26, 2015 This is an action by a prospective member of a start-up limited liability company for breac

FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NATIONAL TPS ALLIANCE; MARIELA No. 25-5724 GONZALEZ; FREDDY ARAPE RIVAS; D.C. No. M.H.; CECILIA GON

Opinion COLLINS, J. Spouses Yevgeny “Eugene” Selivanov and Tatyana Berkovich founded a charter school, Ivy Academia, in 2003. In 2006, the Los Angeles *733 Unified School District (LAUSD), which issued Ivy Academia’s charter, cond

Filed 12/13/16 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR THE PEOPLE, B252894 consolidated with B255166 Plaintiff and Respondent,

Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email corrections@akcourts.us. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA ERIC FORRER, ) ) Supreme Cour

Justice GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court. *1737Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences. Major initiatives practically guarantee them. In our time, few pieces of federal legislation rank in significance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on th

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2347 LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, INCORPORATED, a Virginia Nonprofit Corporation; MICHELE G. WADDELL; JOANNE V. MERRILL, Plaintiffs − Appellants, and MARTHA A. NEAL; DAVID STEIN, M.D.; PAUSANIAS ALEXANDER; MARY T. BENDORF; DELEGATE KATHY BYRON; JEFF HELGESON, Plaintiffs,

CLAY, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which SILER, J., joined. RYAN, J. (963-74), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. OPINION CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendants and Intervenors Dr. Susan Tave Zelman, et al; Senel Taylor, et al.; and Hanna Perkins School, et al., appeal from the order entered by the United States Dis

OPINION LASTER, Vice Chancellor. In February 2015, Red Clay Consolidated School District (“Red Clay”) held a special election in which residents were asked to approve an increase in the school-related property taxes paid by owners of non-exempt real estate located within the district (the “Special Election”). Red Clay prevailed in the Special Election, w

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, INCORPORATED,  a Virginia Nonprofit Corporation; MICHELE G. WADDELL; JOANNE V. MERRILL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and MARTHA A. NEAL; DAVID STEIN, M.D.; PAUSANIAS ALEXANDER; MARY T. BENDORF; DELEGATE KATHY BYRON; JEFF HELGESON, Plaintiffs, v. TIMOTHY GEITHNER, Secretary of 

Certiorari granted, November 26, 2012 Vacated by Supreme Court, November 26, 2012 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, INCORPORATED,  a Virginia Nonprofit Corporation; MICHELE G. WADDELL; JOANNE V. MERRILL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and MARTHA A. NEAL; DAVID STEIN, M.D.; PAUSANIAS ALEXANDER; MARY T. BENDORF; DELEGATE KATHY BYRON; JEFF HELG

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2022 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit