Cases

263 S.W.3d 876 (2007) Dorothy OWENS, as Conservator of Mary Francis King, an incapacitated person v. NATIONAL HEALTH CORPORATION et al. No. M2005-01272-SC-R11-CV. Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Nashville. June 6, 2007 Session. November 8, 2007. Order Granting in part and Denying in part Appellees' Petition to Rehear February 7,

622 S.E.2d 725 (2005) The ESTATE OF Janice SPELL, Willie E. Spell, Administrator, and the Estate of Willie R. Spell, Willie E. Spell, Administrator, Plaintiffs, v. Firas GHANEM, Tarboro Clinic, P.A., James Eugene Kendall, Jr., David W. Lee, Malana K. Moshesh, Elizabeth M. Reinoehl, Tarboro Women's Center, P.A., East Carolina Health-Heritage, Inc., d/b/a Heritage Hospital, Defendants. No. COA05-353. Cou

LCS Capital, LLC v Luis (2025 NY Slip Op 01211) LCS Capital, LLC v Luis 2025 NY Slip Op 01211 Decided on March 5, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 24-OCT-2024 07:56 AM Dkt. 48 ODAC SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 26-SEP-2024 02:30 PM Dkt. 32 ODAC SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

896 F.2d 204 28 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 555, Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 15286ALena F. KING, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee. No. 89-5433. United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit. Argued Nov. 9, 1989.Decided Feb. 21, 1990.Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 3, 1990. <

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this employment discrimination and retaliation action brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. The co

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this employment discrimination and retaliation action brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. The co

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER J. THOMAS GREENE, District Judge. This matter came on for expedited hearing on September 23, 1991, on motions of non parties to intervene, to modify an existing protective order and various other motions aimed at gaining access to documents and other materials which had been produced in pre-trial discovery and lodged with the court under seal prior to dismissal of the underlying

OPINION E. RILEY ANDERSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WILLIAM M. BARKER, C.J., and ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., JANICE M. HOLDER, and CORNELIA A. CLARK, JJ., joined. We granted review in this medical malpractice case to determine whether a he-moclip that is intentionally used but negligently placed and negligently left in a patient’s body followin

OneWest Bank, FSB v Johnson 2026 NY Slip Op 03315 May 27, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. OneWest Bank, FSB, appellant, v Trenia Johnson, respondent, et al., defendants. Supreme Court

101 B.R. 658 (1989) In re Donna G. THOMPSON, Debtor. Fred W. WOODSON, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO., and Donna G. Thompson, Defendants. In re Carol I. VANDIVER, d/b/a The Wicker Shop, Debtor. Fred W. WOODSON, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO., and Carol I. Vandiver, Defendants. In re Paul David WALKUP and Anna Maria Walkup, Debtors. Fred W. WOODSON, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR CR

Dwyer, A.C.J. ¶1 Aaron Bander appeals from the judgment entered on a jury’s verdict finding him guilty of murder in the first degree. Bander contends that proper application of the Frye1 standard, which requires that certain expert testimony be based on generally accepted scientific principles, would have barred testimony from two of the State’s witnesses. He also contends that the trial court erred

RULING JAMES J. BRADY, DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., dated November 23, 2015 (doc. no. 59). Defendants have filed an objection. Plaintiffs have filed a response. The 29-page Report issued by Magistrate Judge Bourgeois is well reasoned and defendants’ argument

ELDER, J., dissenting. The majority holds that Parrish was not an employee of Creative Designs Tattooing Associates, Inc. (Creative Designs or employer), at the time of his death and, thus, his estate (claimant) is not entitled to death benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). I believe the evidence supports the commission’s finding that the tattoo a

ALARCÓN, Circuit Judge: We must decide whether the district court erred in dismissing this declaratory judgment action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, notwithstanding the existence of an actual controversy between the parties regarding non-frivolous federal claims that could be brought by the defendants in a coercive action. The district court held that it lacked subj

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 04-JUN-2024 08:01 AM Dkt. 326 MO NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

262 F.3d 222 (3rd Cir. 2001) WILLIAM TURNER; YVONNE RUFFIN; JAMES OECHSLE; GLADYS WOODARD; GEORGE AALBREGTSE; CALVIN AKERS; ROBERT ALBRIGHT; BARRY AMOS; KEVIN ANDERSON; ELLIOTT BAILEY; TYRONE BANKS; WILLIAM BAUER; WILSON BECKWITH, JR.; VITO BENDZIUS; DEBORAH BLACKMAN; GLENDA BLAKE; LORETTA BLAKE; BERTRAND BLIER, SR.; JOSEPH BLOCKER; MARY BONETT; JAMES BOSTON; CHARLES BOTTOMS; CAROLYN BOYCE; FABIAN BRINSON; VICTOR BROWN; WILLIAM BRYANT; RALPH BURTON

OPINION OF THE COURT Abdtjs-Salaam, J. These two cases call upon us to assess the continued vitality of the rule promulgated in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M. (77 NY2d 651 [1991])—namely that, in an unmarried couple, a partner without a biological or adoptive relation to a child is not that child’s “parent” for purposes of standing to seek custody or visitation under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a),

OPINION OF THE COURT Abdtjs-Salaam, J. These two cases call upon us to assess the continued vitality of the rule promulgated in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M. (77 NY2d 651 [1991])—namely that, in an unmarried couple, a partner without a biological or adoptive relation to a child is not that child’s “parent” for purposes of standing to seek custody or visitation under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a),