Cases

KANNE, Circuit Judge. Kevin Rittenhouse appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In addition to arguing that the district court incorrectly denied his petition with respect to the two claims in the certificate of appealability, Rittenhouse also asks us to amend the certificate to include two other claims. For the reasons stated below, we w

686 N.W.2d 50 (2004) Terry L. GALE, Appellant, v. Dorothy N. RITTENHOUSE, et al., Respondents. No. A04-7. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. September 7, 2004. *51 Gordon P. Heinson, Theresa A. Peterson, Fabyanske, Westra & Hart, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for appellant. Robert C. Hoene, John P. Worrell, Hoene & Krause, St

526 S.E.2d 342 (2000) 272 Ga. 78 RITTENHOUSE v. The STATE. Taylor v. The State. Nos. S99A1718, S99A1721. Supreme Court of Georgia. February 14, 2000. *343 Donald R. Donovan, Hiram, for appellant (case no. S99A1718). John F. McClellan, Jr., William A. O'Dell, Rome, for appellant (case no.

777 A.2d 1113 (2001) Ruth S. RITTENHOUSE, Administratrix of the Estate of John Rittenhouse, Deceased, Appellee, v. Gerald E. HANKS, M.D., Anthony D'Amico, M.D., and American Oncological Hospital of the Fox Chase Cancer Center. Appeal of Gerald E. Hanks, M.D. and American Oncological Hospital of the Fox Chase Cancer Center. Ruth S. Rittenhouse, Administratrix of the Estate of John Rittenhouse, Deceased, Appellee, v. Gerald E. Hanks

MEMORANDUM A. RICHARD CAPUTO, District Judge. Plaintiffs bring this suit alleging violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and Pennsylvania law, as well as several state tort claims. Three sets of Defendants move to dismiss: the “City Defendants” (the City of Wilkes-Barre, Thomas Leighton, Gerald Dessoye, J.J. Murphy, Tony Thomas Jr., Kathy Kane, William Barrett, Rick Cronauer, Michael

JUSTICE COOK, dissenting: I respectfully dissent and would reverse. J.K. is a 10-year-old female. C.K. is her eight-year-old brother. In 1991, the two were removed from their parents amidst allegations of sexual abuse against their father, Leonhard. J.K was placed in the custody of her grandparents, but that came to an end after J.K. made alleg

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 04 2018, 8:32 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals

Opinion by Judge D.W. NELSON; Dissent by Judge DAVID R. THOMPSON. D.W. NELSON, Senior Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Idaho Sporting Congress, Inc. and Alliance for the Wild Rockies (collectively “Conservation Groups”) brought suit against the United States Forest Service (“Forest Service”) to enjoin two timber sales (“Lightning Ridge sale and Long Prong sale”) in the Boise National Forest (“Forest”) for vio

425 Pa. Superior Ct. 501 (1993) 625 A.2d 1208 John RITTENHOUSE and Sally Rittenhouse, T/A Larchwood Partners, v. BARCLAY WHITE INC., Appellant. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Argued March 10, 1993. Filed May 24, 1993. *502 *503 W. Mark Mullineaux, Wayne, for appellant.

561 N.E.2d 264 (1990) 203 Ill. App.3d 639 148 Ill.Dec. 958 Paul RITTENHOUSE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TABOR GRAIN CO., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross Defendant-Appellant (Long Point Grain and Supply Company, Inc., Third Party Defendant-Appellee and Cross Plaintiff-Appellee; CE-Natco and Greenlee Construction Co., Third Party Defendants-Appellees). No. 4-

Boyle, J. I concur in the result reached by *219Justice Riley on the issue in these cases regarding settlement setoff computations. There is no requirement that a jury determine a plaintiffs negligence by comparing the plaintiffs actions to all possible tortfeasors. A jury is not and should not be permitted to adjust a pl

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Feb 12 2016, 8:21 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Dale W. Arnett Meeks Cockerill Winchester, Indiana

OPINION KRAFT, District Judge. In this maritime action for personal injuries, plaintiff, a member of the United States Coast Guard, after trial to a jury, recovered a verdict and judgment of $60,0001 against the defendant, Rittenhouse. On November 13, 1969, the jury found, in answer to specific interrogatories, that the defendant’s vessel was seaworthy ; th

OPINION OF THE COURT AND ACTION ON APPEAL BY THE UNITED STATES FILED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 62, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE JOHNSON, Judge: The government’s timely appeal under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice 10 U.S.C. § 862 [hereinafter UCMJ], is granted. The military judge’s decision to suppress evidence seized from Sergeant Rittenhouse’s (appellee’s) barracks room and to suppress oral st

HOLLAND, Justice: This condemnation action was initiated by the State of Delaware, upon relation of the Commissioner of the Department of Correction (“State”). The named defendants included John S. Rittenhouse and Thomas Brittingham, trading as Ludlow Industrial Park Partnership (“Ludlow Partnership”). Ludlow Partnership requested that a trial be held to determine the amount of just compensation for the taking of its property.

382 A.2d 235 (1977) RITTENHOUSE ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff below, Appellant, v. FREDERIC A. POTTS AND CO., INC., et al., Defendants below, Appellees. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted October 12, 1977. Decided December 16, 1977. Michael D. Goldman and Daniel F. Wolcott, Jr. of Potter Anderson & Corroon, Wilmington, for plaintiff below, appellant. John

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 00-3461 Kevin Rittenhouse, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John C. Battles, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 98 C 3286--Jeanne E. Scott, Judge. Argued April 12, 2001--Decided August 27, 2001 Before Flaum, Chief Judge, and Manion and Kanne, Circuit Judges. Kanne, Circuit Judge. Kevin Rittenhouse appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for

OPINION BARRON, Judge. In this condemnation case, brought under 10 Del.C., ch. 61, the State, upon the relation of the Commissioner of the Department of Correction (State), has filed a Motion In Limine and memoranda in support of its Motion for an Order that its condemnation action constitutes a “total taking.” The State seeks a ruling that defendants may not offer evidence at trial on a “partial

277 F.Supp. 608 (1967) Victor NIKIFOROW v. John F. RITTENHOUSE. Civ. A. No. 40320. United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania. November 21, 1967. *609 Harry Lore, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff. Thomas A. Reynolds, and J. Clayton Undercofler, III, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDE

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff John Stephen Larkin filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) on July 20, 2001 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Nicholas G. Garaufis, Judge) against the various police-officer defendants, alleging that they denied him due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by refusing to return his motor vehicle, which he turned over t