Cases

185 Mich. App. 531 (1990) 462 N.W.2d 793 PEOPLE v. HOYT Docket No. 107828. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided September 17, 1990. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Gay Secor Hardy, Solicitor General, Conrad J. Sindt, Prosecuting Attorney, and Daniel R. Buscher, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people. <

800 F.Supp.2d 1020 (2011) Joseph and Carolyn FRIEDBERG, Plaintiffs, v. CHUBB AND SON, INC., and Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company, Defendants. Civil No. 08-6476 (DSD/JJK). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. May 26, 2011. *1021 Jenneane L. Jansen, Esq., Jansen & Palmer LLC, and Steven E. Wolter, Esq., Kelley, Wolter &

ORDER DAVID S. DOTY, District Judge. This matter is before the court upon cross motions for summary judgment by defendants Chubb & Son, Inc. and Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company (collectively, Chubb) and plaintiffs Joseph and Carolyn Friedberg; motions to exclude expert witnesses by Chubb and the Friedbergs1; and the motion to strike declarations by Chubb.

(2008) Earl S. DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. Howard PETERS, III, Former Secretary of the Illinois Department of Human Services, Timothy Budz, Former Facility Director of the Sexually Violent Persons Unit, Thomas J. Monahan, Facility Director of the Sexually Violent Persons Unit, Linda R. Baker, Former Secretary of the Illinois Department of Human Services, all in their individual capacities and Carol L. Adams, Secretary of the Illinois Department of Human

POSNER, Chief Judge. Between 1980 and 1984 Walgreen made a number of leasehold improvements in drugstores and restaurants that it owned. The improvements were depreciable real property within the meaning of section 1250(c) of the Internal Revenue Code — “section 1250 property,” as it is called; depreciable personal property, such as machinery, is covered in section 1245 and is

HATCHETT, Circuit Judge: In this drug conspiracy case, we apply the teachings of Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), and order that the appellants be afforded relief from the government’s breach of their plea agreements through specific performance of the agreements. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. On December 18, 1985, a federal grand jury

101 Md. App. 243 (1994) 646 A.2d 1021 NINA NNOLI v. EMMANUEL NNOLI. Nos. 1253 and 1303, September Term, 1993. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. August 31, 1994. Alan Meiselman, Rockville, for appellant. Emmanuel Nnoli, Washington, DC (Brian F. Lee of Rockville, on the brief), for appellee. Argued before WILNER, C.J., and BIS

101 F.3d 1151 Chad Timothy DICKERSON and Deon Denay Dickerson, a minor, byher mother and legal guardian, Sharon DaleStephens, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.Cory D. McCLELLAN and Charles L. Stevens, Individually andin their Official Capacities as Police Officers for theMetropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County,Tennessee, Defendants-Appellants,Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County,Tenness

837 F.2d 1519 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Thomas Manfred NELSON, a/k/a "Nellie", Roger S. Scott, FrankRobert Guido, Jr., Lee H. Waldhart, a/k/a "Mr. Skimo", a/k/a"Tom Burch", William Bruce Arnett, a/k/a "Jeremy", a/k/a"Buzzy", Defendants-Appellants. No. 86-3476. United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. Feb. 25, 1988.

MOORE, Circuit Judge. Appellants, Officer Cory D. McClellan and Sergeant Charles L. Stevens (the “officers”), appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, brought by the appellees, children of Joel Dickerson who was fatally shot by McClellan when the officers responded to a “shots fired” call at his house. The plaintiffs allege Fourth Ame

CHAPMAN, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff and defendants appeal various rulings made by the district court during the trial of this action for defamation, invasion of privacy, interference with a business, conspiracy and violation of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq. (1976 and Supp.1979). The district judge held that all but two of appellant’s causes of action wer

704 F.2d 1296 Glenda C. BROWN, Appellant,v.AMERICAN BROADCASTING CO., INC. Margaret Osmer-McQuade,Kathleen T. Gardner, David L. Holton, MargaretDixon, Val J. Halamandaris, RobertWeiner, Appellees.Glenda C. BROWN, Appellee,v.AMERICAN BROADCASTING CO., INC., Margaret Osmer-McQuade, Appellants,andKathleen T. Gardner, David L. Holton, Margaret Dixon, Val J.Halamandaris, Robert Weiner, Defendants.

This is an action for slander. Upon a trial had before a jury in the circuit court of St. Charles county there was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $1500. Defendants appeal. No bill of exceptions was filed and the case is therefore before us on the record proper. The abstract of the record contains a motion for a new trial and a motion in arrest of judgment; same, however, were not made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions, nor does the record disclose that de

WOODSON, J. This is a suit to quiet title and ejectment for the possession of certain real estate situate in Warren county. A trial was had on the first count before the court, which resulted in -a finding and judgment for the plaintiff, but upon motion for a new trial, the judgment was set aside and a new trial granted. From the order granting the new trial the plaintiff duly appealed to this court.

RUTLEDGE, Associate Justice. The only question is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment in plaintiff’s favor.1 The suit was for malpractice. Defendants are physicians, specializing in X-ray work. They treated plaintiff for removal of a pilonidal cyst. He claims they gave him an overdose of X rays which caused him injury. The question arises in

Robinson, C. J. — Appellant appeals from a judgment recovered by appellee for injuries received because of a defective sidewalk, and assigns as error the overruling of the demurrer to the complaint, the overruling of the motion for a new trial, and the motion in arrest of judgment. The complaint alleges, in substance, that on the 4th day of July, 1894, appellee, in the exercise of due care and caution, was wa

Mr. Justice HutchisoN delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action for personal injuries, alleged to have been *696caused by the negligence of the defendant, in the operation of one of its street cars. The early history of the case may be found in Miranda v. P. R. Ry., Light & Power Co., 31 P.R.R. 738, where a judgment for plaintiff

El Juez Asociado Señob Hutchison, emitió la opinión del tribunal. La presente es una acción por daños personales que se alega fueron causados por la negligencia de la demandada en el funcionamiento de uno de sus tranvías. La historia anterior de este caso puede hallarse en Miranda v. Porto Rico Railway, Light & Power Co., 31 D.P.R. 778, donde se revocó una sentencia a favor de la demandant