Cases

497 F.Supp.2d 1179 (2007) Carlos ROSADO, Plaintiff, v. Edward ALAMEIDA, Jr., et al., Defendants. No. CIV.03CV1110J(LSP). United States District Court, S.D. California. June 14, 2007. *1180 *1181 *1182 Aaron P. Arnzen and Darcie A. Tilly, Cooley Godward Kron

340 F.Supp.2d 63 (2004) Howane J. ORTIZ ROSADO, by his natural mother Evelyn ROSADO GUITIERREZ, Plaintiff v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant No. CIV.04-30033-KPN. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. September 20, 2004. *64 Ronald B. Eskin, Law Office of Robert B. Eski

OPINION OF THE COURT Alan D. Scheinkman, J. Order to show cause by defendants for an order allowing defendants to designate a new physician to examine plaintiff based upon the recent unavailability of defendants’ previous physician, who has moved out of state, and compelling plaintiff to appear for a further physical examination by defendants’ designated physician at least 60 days prior to trial; and cross m

SUPERIOR COURT COMMONWEALTH v. JOSE ROSADO-NAZARIO Docket: 2081CR00319 Dates: November 25, 2024 Present: Kenneth W. Saling

Matter of Rosado v Cornielle (2021 NY Slip Op 08188) Matter of Rosado v Cornielle 2021 NY Slip Op 08188 Decided on February 24, 2021 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau

IN THE SUPRElVIE COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE Pet. Nos. 13—29034, 14-07724 Petitioner/Respondent Below, 14-13022, 14-13032 Appellee. EDWARD ROSADO,‘ § § Nos. 550, 2014 & 551, 2014 Respondent/Petitioner Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court of § State of Delaware in and for v. § Kent County § KAREN ROBERTS, § File No. CK11-03242 § § § Submitted: December 10, 2014 Decided: February 20, 2015 Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and VALIHURA, Justices. OR D E R This 20th day of Feb

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-2469 BRIAN TOWNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KAREN DONNELLY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the No

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jeffrey S. Sunshine, J.) dated December 20, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied those branches of the defendant’s motion which were to set aside the parties’ stipulation of settlement or, in the alternative, for a hearing as to the validity of the stipulation, and granted those branches of the plaintiff’s cross motion which wer

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL ESPECIAL KEREN ORTIZ VIZCARRONDO Y JAVIER Apelación NIEVES FALERO, ambos procedente del por sí y en representación Tribunal de de la Sociedad Legal de Primera Instancia, Gananciales compuesta

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL ESPECIAL KEREN ORTIZ VIZCARRONDO Y JAVIER Apelación NIEVES FALERO, ambos procedente del por sí y en representación Tribunal de de la Sociedad Legal de Primera Instancia, Gananciales compuesta

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL ESPECIAL KEREN ORTIZ VIZCARRONDO Y JAVIER Apelación NIEVES FALERO, ambos procedente del por sí y en representación Tribunal de de la Sociedad Legal de Primera Instancia, Gananciales compuesta

79 F.3d 1156 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order. In

SYLLABUS This syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Court. In the interest of brevity, portions of an opinion may not have been summarized. State v. Darius J. Carter (A-66-19) (083221) State v. Miguel A. Roman-Rosado (A-67-19) (084074) Argued April 27, 2021 -- Decided August 2, 20

PER CURIAM: Carlos Rodriguez appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. After careful review, we affirm the district court’s denial of Rodriguez’s motion as time-barred. I. This Court outlined the facts underlying Rodriguez’s convictions in a previous opinion affirming his convictions on direct appeal. See United States v. Esquenazi, 752 F.3d 912 (

994 A.2d 9 (2010) In re: The Nomination Petition of Sheila Dow FORD for the Office of Representative in the U.S. Congress of District Number 17. Objection of: Yesenia A. Rosado. No. 226 M.D. 2010 Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Heard April 7, 2010. Decided April 12, 2010. Publication Ordered May 3, 2010.

BOWNES, Senior Circuit Judge. This is a Sentencing Guidelines appeal. In November of 1990, a federal grand jury in the district of Rhode Island issued a three-count indictment against the appellant, Karen Dilorio, and a co-defendant, Fernando Cabral. The first count charged Dilorio and Cabral with conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violati

People v Burris (2023 NY Slip Op 06319) People v Burris 2023 NY Slip Op 06319 Decided on December 07, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

People v Burris (2023 NY Slip Op 06319) People v Burris 2023 NY Slip Op 06319 Decided on December 07, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

70 Wis.2d 280 (1975) 234 N. W. 2d 69 ROSADO, Plaintiff in error, v. STATE, Defendant in error. No. State 228 (1974). Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Argued October 2, 1975. Decided October 28, 1975. *282 For the plaintiff in error there were briefs by Howard B. Eisenberg, state public d

People v Smith (2025 NY Slip Op 02296) People v Smith 2025 NY Slip Op 02296 Decided on April 22, 2025 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.