Cases

381 B.R. 272 (2008) In re Jeffrey W. and Laurie D. SWENSON, Debtors. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey W. Swenson; Laurie D. Swenson; Warren E. Swenson; and Vicky L. Senella, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 05-33004-C-7. Adversary No. 05-02530-C. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California, Sacramento Division. January 9, 2008.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Jenkins v. Rockwood, 820 So.2d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Bates v. Cook, Inc., 509 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1987). GROSS, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

81 F.Supp.2d 250 (2000) KEANE, INC., Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey B. SWENSON, Defendant. No. Civ.A.98-CV-10877PBS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. January 13, 2000. *251 Peter J. MacDonald, Hale & Dorr, Boston, MA, for Keane, Inc., plaintiff. Russell X. Pollock, Campbell, Campbell & Edwards, Boston, MA, fo

59 Wn. App. 586 (1990) 799 P.2d 1188 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. JEFFREY RALPH SWENSON, Appellant. No. 24032-3-I. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One. November 13, 1990. *587 Michael P. Iaria and Nance, Iaria & Gombiner, for appellant. Seth R. Dawson, Pr

368 N.W.2d 621 (1985) Darrell FEISTNER, Plaintiff and Appellant, and Marie Budde, Plaintiff, v. Edward L. SWENSON, Defendant and Appellee. No. 14730. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs March 7, 1985. Decided May 22, 1985. *622 Jeffrey D. Larson of Bleeker, Boldt & Koch, Woonsocket, for pl

Owens, J. ¶1 — The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires warrants to “particularly de-scrib[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” That requirement is heightened if the warrant authorizes a search for materials protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 485, 85 S. Ct. 506, 13 L. Ed. 2d 431 (1965). In this case, w

OPINION RE: LIEN PRIORITY RANDOLPH J. HAINES, Bankruptcy Judge. The issue here is whether various mechanics’ lien claimants, who claim priority dating from the commencement of construction in October, 2005, have priority over a construction deed of trust that was recorded in May of 2007. The lender, Mortgages, Ltd., maintains that even if there is but a single project or “work,” a mechanics’ lien has priori

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan March 8, 2011 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice 142032-3

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge. *286BACKGROUND 287 I. PURCHASE OF THE ADT SECURITY SYSTEM........................287 II. AGREEMENT BETWEEN LEE AND ADT.............................290 III. ALLEGED SECURITY SYSTEM FAILURE ............................291

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 07–1495 Filed March 13, 2009 JEFFREY GEORGE, Appellant, vs. D.W. ZINSER COMPANY, Appellee. On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, James H. Carter, Judge. Employee challenges district court’s dismissal of his petition asserting claims of retaliatory discharge and unpaid wages against his

690 F.Supp.2d 5 (2009) LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY S. GLASSMAN, Plaintiff, v. Raymond PALMISCIANO and Robert Lafazia, Defendants, Amica Mutual Insurance, Inc., Reach and Apply Defendant. Civil Action No. 07-10306-DPW. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. December 29, 2009. *7 Edward C. Cooley, Giarusso, Norton, Cooley &

ACCEPTED 03-14-00738-CV 6348477 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

ACCEPTED 03-14-00738-CV 5721197 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

Memorandum Decision CHRISTIANSEN, Judge: {1 This is a legal malpractice action sounding in negligence and breach of contract arising from a law firm's representation of a cotrustee. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the law firm. 12 Neil Breton, a cotrustee of his father's trust, which is known as t

ACCEPTED 03-14-00738-CV 5120005 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

ACCEPTED 03-14-00738-CV 5859687 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, T

ACCEPTED 03-14-00738-CV 5865989 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

ACCEPTED 03-14-00738-CV 7596838 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUST

MERRITT, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Lundgren testified that he killed a family of five cult members as a religious sacrifice. He did so, he said, because he received a command from God that this sacrifice was necessary to prepare for “Zion” and the “Second Coming.” I disagree with our Court’s decision and reasoning in section II.D.3. above rejecting Lundgren’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on tr

ACCEPTED 03-14-00738-CV 4280982 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS