Cases

Fabricant, Judith, J. INTRODUCTION These four cases present a dispute regarding interpretation of the language of the Massachusetts Standard Automobile Policy (the standard policy) as it was applied by the four automobile insurers named as defendants, Safety Insurance Company, Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Massa*596

71 So.3d 234 (2011) Reyes Herrera MOLINA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 2D10-229. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. October 12, 2011. *235 James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Judith Ellis, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallaha

MEMORANDUM** Elisa Molina appeals the 15-month sentence imposed following her guilty plea for conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We remand the sentence for further proceedings consistent with United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). REMANDED.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER BARTELS, District Judge. Defendants Judith S. Kaye and the Administrative Board of the Courts (collectively “Defendants”) move to dismiss plaintiff Jose F. Molina’s pro se complaint in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be gra

Martin, J. The Appellate Division reviews the allowance of defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. We find no error. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover for damages and personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of a motor-vehicle collision in which the defendant was the operator of the other motor vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant operated the vehicle negligently, causing t

ORDER The opinion filed in this case on August 20, 1991, Pereira v. United States Postal Serv., 942 F.2d 577 (9th Cir.1991), is ordered withdrawn. The appellees’ petition for rehearing is denied. OPINION TROTT, Circuit Judge: FACTS Pereira, a letter carrier for

OPINION FACTS Pereira, a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service, filed this action alleging he was harassed by his supervisors because of his activities associated with his candidacy for a position on the Santa Clara California City Council. Pereira contends he was harassed for allegedly abusing sick leave, was instructed not to take his lunch more than one-ha

Ana Beti Molina and Javier Molina v. State, Nos. 2380 & 2537, Sept. Term, 2017, Opinion by Leahy, J. Evidence > Circumstantial Evidence Circumstantial evidence may be just as relevant as direct evidence, and our cases do not require any “greater degree of certainty [] when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct, for in either case the trier of fact must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.” Hebron v. State, 331 Md. 219, 226-27 (1993) (internal cita

JUDITH E. LEVY, United States District Judge Defendant Leopoldo Vargas-Molina was indicted for unlawful reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He filed two motions to dismiss the indictment, both of which go to the validity of his underlying removal order from 2011. Vargas-Molina relies upon § 1326(d) to collaterally att

NELSON, Circuit Judge: Appellant Carlos Molina appeals from the dismissal, without a hearing, of his third motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his conviction and sentence on one count of bank robbery. Molina's motion raises two issues. First, Molina contends that the sentencing judge improperly relied on the fact that Molina had refused to cooperate with the probation offi

(Judge Kane ) Presently before the Court are Defendants Stephen Catanese, Pennsylvania Social Service Union, Service Employees International, and Lehigh County Board of Commissioners' ("Defendants") motions to dismiss Plaintiff Francisco Molina ("Plaintiff")'s first amended complaint (Doc. No. 20) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Doc. Nos. 27, 28). Having heard oral argument on the motions on June

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge: Juan A. Cid appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to quash a grand jury subpoena and the court’s order that Cid comply with the subpoena by executing a consent, directed to “any bank or trust company at which I have a bank account,” for the production of bank records. His principal objection is that the compulsion offends his Fifth Amendment privilege. We affirm. Con

942 So.2d 1036 (2006) Jose Antonio MOLINA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 2D05-5807. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. December 8, 2006. *1037 James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Judith Ellis, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General

EN EL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE PUERTO RICO María L. Bonet Cardona Peticionaria Certiorari v. 2011 TSPR 56 181 DPR ____ Judith Holahan, Jane E. Popp, Thomas Holahan, Karen Count Recurridos Número del Caso: CC - 2010 - 343 Fecha: 7 de abril de 2011 Tribunal de Apelacio

ACCEPTED 13-15-00517-CV THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 12/16/2015 2:53:05 PM

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas October 24, 2016 No. 04-16-00695-CV IN RE RIO GRANDE CITY CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Alfredo Garcia, Superintendent, Daniel Garcia, Judith Solis, Norberto Cantu, Ruben Klein, Eduardo Ramirez, Noe R. Gonzalez, and Benito Saenz

KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge. The principal question in these appeals is when lying to a pretrial services officer amounts to an obstruction of justice under the Sentencing Guidelines. I The man known to us as Antonio Magana-Guerrero1 had nine prior convictions when he was arrested in connection with this ease: three for selling narcotics, one for possessing nar

MEMORANDUM ** Gonzalo Ramirez-Llamas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of two orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying successive mo*693tions to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.

ACCEPTED 15-24-00079-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/7/2025 5:12 PM No. 15-24-00079-CV CHRI

OPINION M. SMITH, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs-Appellants Natural Resources Defense Council and Santa Monica Bay-keeper (collectively, the Plaintiffs) filed suit against the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (collectively, the County Defendants) alleging that the County Defendants are discharging polluted stormwater