Cases

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D15-3358 _____________________________ EDWARD F. BOROWSKI, JR., Appellant, v. JEFFREY E. FERRER, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Karen K. Cole, Judge. September 5, 2018 OSTERHAUS, J. Edward F. Borowski, Jr

JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the decision to deny Jeffrey Smith’s application to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Mr. Smith argues that Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), makes his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) sentence unlawful. In Johnson, the Supreme Court struck a portion of the Arm

HINKLE, District Judge: This is an honest-services fraud case. On one view of the evidence, the defendants participated in a classic kickback scheme. On another view, the scheme involved an egregious conflict of interest but no kickback. Under Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010), the defendants’ conduct constitute

PER CURIAM. Eliseo Ferrer and Maria Ferrer appeal an adverse summary judgment in their personal injury case. We affirm. Plaintiff-appellant Eliseo Ferrer was a member of a golf league at the Fontaine-bleau Golf Course. In return for the fees paid to the league, league members received reduced green fees and the use of golf carts. The golfers play in rotating groups each week.. In 1

CAPPY *, Justice, dissenting. In my view, the majority opinion effects a dramatic and ill-advised change in Pennsylvania’s law of contracts relating to damages. Because it is a change that I cannot accept, I must respectfully dissent. I begin with my understanding of Appellant’s case. Appellant’s sole theory of recovery sounded in contract, and focused on the natur

*521 ORDER PER CURIAM: AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2000, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, LIMITED to the following two issues: 1. Whether the Superior Court erred in finding that petitioner did not sustain compensable damages and thus was unable to establish that he suffered harm from the Uni

People v Ferrer (2018 NY Slip Op 04562) People v Ferrer 2018 NY Slip Op 04562 Decided on June 20, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 4

*1085 ORDER PER CURIAM: AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2000, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, LIMITED to the following two issues: 1. Whether the Superior Court erred in finding that petitioner did not sustain compensable damages and thus was unable to establish that he suffered harm from t

Stephens, J. ¶1 This case presents an issue of first impression involving a determination of damages for legal malpractice. After he admitted liability, the trial court ordered attorney-petitioner Douglas Ferrer to pay client-respondents Andrea and Keith Shoemake interest on a settlement that the Shoemakes would have received had Ferrer not mishandled their case. The trial court calculated the interest on a figure of $60,000, rep

225 P.3d 990 (2010) Andrea SHOEMAKE, by and through a GUARDIAN ad litem to be appointed, and Keith Shoemake, and their marital community, Respondents, v. R. Douglas P. FERRER and Jane Doe Ferrer, husband and wife, Petitioners. No. 81812-6. Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. Argued October 22, 2009. Decided February 4, 2010.

EN EL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE PUERTO RICO Howard Ferrer; B/JCS Delibox; Dora García; Nelson Capote; Ismael Torres y Eneida Román Certiorari Recurridos 2022 TSPR 72 v. 209 DPR ____ Puerto Rico Telephone Company Peticionaria Número del Caso: CC-2021-154 Fecha:

OPINION JEFFREY S. BIVINS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., and CAMILLE R. McMULLEN, JJ., joined. Jeffrey King (“Defendant J. King”) entered conditional guilty pleas in Rutherford County to one count of conspiracy to sell over seventy pounds of marijuana and one cou

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 09a0399p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X - THE LONGABERGER COMPANY, as

WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judge: *1269 This appeal requires us to decide whether the employee exemption to the Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320a-7b(b)(3)(B), applies to payments that AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Inc., made to an employee tasked with referring HIV-positive patients to

PER CURIAM: James Gailey, appointed counsel for Es-pere Pierre, in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of

PER CURIAM: Darryl Burke and Vicki Garland, his wife, appeal their convictions for conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Burke also appeals the prison sentences received, totaling 360 months, for his convictions.1 Burke and Garland challenge their convictions on the ground that the district court abused its di

*1230 CARNES, Chief Judge: The truth of Alexander Pope’s observation that “[h]ope springs eternal in the human breast,” 1 can often be seen in matters of matrimony. Unfortunately for the defendant in this case, what sprang from his fifth matri

MARTIN, Circuit Judge: Willis Maxi and Markentz Blanc appeal their convictions, after a jury trial, on charges relating to their participation in an extensive drug distribution network. Mr. Maxi challenges the admission of evidence he says was the product of an illegal search. Mr. Blanc challenges the admission of evidence from wiretaps as well as an instruction given to the jury abou

PER CURIAM: In March 2009, a grand jury in the Southern District of Florida charged Sirtaj “Tosh” Mathauda with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 2326 (Count 1); mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 2326, 2 (Counts 2 through 14); and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2326, 2 (Counts 15 and 16). The indictment alleged t

SEALED ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR, SUMMARY JUDGMENT KATHLEEN M. WILLIAMS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Inc.’s (“AHF”) motion for summary judgment based on the employee safe harbor exception to Anti-Kickback Statute- liability. (Sealed motion, DE 171; Sealed exhibits to motion, DE 172; Redacted public motion, DE 174). Relators Jac