Cases

BRYAN, Judge. James Kevin Taylor (“the father”) appeals from a judgment of the Lauderdale Circuit Court (“the trial court”) that divorced him from Michelle Taylor (“the mother”) insofar as it awarded him separate visitation schedules for the parties’ two children and ordered him to pay one-half of the expenses related to the children’s extracurricular activities and one-half the cost of private-school tuition for the older c

On Appeal from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals KASOLD, Judge: Mrs. Erika E. Taylor, surviving wife of veteran Theodore Taylor, appeals pro se a January 14, 2005, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) that denied her claim for accrued benefits because her deceased husband’s (1) pending disability compensation claim for a seizure disorder was not

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, Senior District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff John A. Taylor (“plaintiff’), an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center (“VCC”), Smyrna, Delaware, proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.' He filed this lawsuit in December 2014 raising medical needs • claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.I. 3) Presently before t

WATT, J.: ¶ 1 The question presented is whether the uninsured motorist insurance carrier is entitled to subrogation against the under-insured tort-feasor's assets, including excess insurance coverage, in the amount the uninsured motorist insurance carrier had previously paid to the injured party. We answer in the negative.

Judgment rendered July 16, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 56,349-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA ***** TOMMY TAYLOR Plaintiff-

LOCKEMY, C.J.: In this divorce action, Carolyn Taylor-Cracraft (Wife) appeals the family court’s order, arguing (1) the family court lacked jurisdiction to apportion her 2.26 acres of riverfront property (the Highway 221 Property) because it was nonmari-tal property that had not been transmuted into marital property; (2) the family court erred in listing the Highway 221 Property and the parties’ jointly-owned corporation, Ri

MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court are two Rule 12 motions: (1) Denka Performance Elastomer LLC's motion to dismiss; and (2) E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company's motion to dismiss. For the reasons that follow, DuPont's motion is GRANTED, and Denka's motion is GRANTED without prejudice to the plaintiffs' opportunity to amend their deficient nuisance allegations in their complaint. <

554 F.3d 879 (2009) Charles TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Randall G. WORKMAN, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary,[*] Respondent-Appellee. No. 07-7030. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. January 30, 2009. *880 Randy A. Bauman, Assistant Federal Public Defender (James A. Drummond, Assistant Federal Public

25 So.3d 216 (2009) Jo Kent TAYLOR (Widow of Gary M. Taylor) v. J. Phillip BOUDREAUX, M.D., et al. No. 09-CA-266. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit. December 8, 2009. Rehearing Denied February 2, 2010. *217 Robert J. David, Tara J. Gilbreath, Attorneys at Law, New Orleans, LA, For Plaintiff/Appellant, J

GILMAN, Circuit Judge: *731 Almus Taylor died from internal bleeding after being kept in a jail holding cell overnight. Bonny Edward Taylor, Almus's father and the Administrator of Almus's estate, sued the jail guards under

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 21st day of November 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd day of March 2006."

620 S.E.2d 242 (2005) Harvey C. TAYLOR, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Don A. ABERNETHY, Individually and Jack C. Weir, Administrator CTA of the Estate of Romer Gray Taylor, Defendants. No. COA04-651. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. October 18, 2005. Wyatt, Early, Harris, Wheeler, LLP, by William E. Wheeler, High Point, for plaintiff-appellee. Gorham, Crone, Mace &am;

AFFIRMED.

987 S.W.2d 597 (1999) Kenneth TAYLOR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 06-98-00068-CR. Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana. Submitted January 28, 1999. Decided January 29, 1999. Discretionary Review Refused May 19, 1999. *598 James E. Davis, Texarkana, AR, for appellant. Ra

RYDER, Acting Chief Judge. John Allen Randall appeals from a conviction for possession of burglary tools. Randall argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We agree with his contention that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress, and, therefore, we need .not address the sufficiency of the evidence. Because the eviden

17 Cal.4th 736 (1998) MICHAEL RANDALL, a Minor, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ORANGE COUNTY COUNCIL, BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, Defendant and Appellant. Docket No. S039161. Supreme Court of California. March 23, 1998. *737 COUNSEL Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, George A. Davidson, Carla A. Kerr, John Kralik IV and

RULING LITTLE, Chief Judge. Before this court is defendant “John Doe” ’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss claims against John Doe is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND On 9 September 1999, plaintiff James Taylor (“Taylor”) filed a

2022 IL App (1st) 210846 No. 1-21-0846 Opinion filed September 8, 2022 Fourth Division ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

MEMORANDUM * Tom Randall and other investors who purchased stock in Rational Software Corporation (Rational) appeal the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of their insider trading class action brought under §§ 10(b) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j, et. seq. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and, after de novo review, we affirm.

KRAMER, Judge, concurring: I concur with the Court’s excellent opinion except as to that portion of part II.B. that concludes that the laws and regulations that were in effect in June 1993 were properly applied to determine that the appellant was a three-quarter-time student. The appellant has not contested this issue and I would not address it. The appellant has argued only that the 1992 amendments to the