Cases

Sanders v. McKnight et al., No. 472-8-14 Wncv (Tomasi, J., March 10, 2016). [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.] STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISIO

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN TENNISON; ANTOINE GOFF,  Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN No. 06-15426 FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO POLICE D.C. Nos. DEPARTMENT; GEORGE BUTTERWORTH,  CV 04-0574 CW CV 04-1643 CW Defendants,

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN TENNISON; ANTOINE GOFF,  Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN No. 06-15426 FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO POLICE D.C. Nos. DEPARTMENT, CV 04-0574 CW Defendants,  CV 04-1643 CW GEORGE BUTTERWORTH, ORDER AND Defendant,

7 F.Supp.2d 151 (1998) Steven P. SANDERS, Daniel M. Porush, Jordan Shamah, and Andrew T. Greene, Petitioners, v. F. Clark GARDNER, Respondent. No. 97-CV-1928(JS). United States District Court, E.D. New York. May 15, 1998. *152 *153 Martin P. Unger, Tenzer Greenblatt L.L.P., New York, NY, for P

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER • Kenneth M. Hoyt, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is USOR’s amended motion for summary judgment and the defendant, the City of Pasadena’s, cross-motion for summary judgment1. The Court notes that it has issued an omnibus memorandum opinion identifying and discussing undisputed facts and as well, the

Opinion by Simpson, C.: This was an action in ejectment. The petition was filed on the 28th day of November, 1879, and j udgment by default was taken on the 22d day of January, 1880. Sometime in the month of December, and before the answer-day named in the summons, Francis L. Sanders, one of the defendants in the court- below, employed an attorney to defend the action against him and his co-defendants, stating t

O’Donnell, J., dissenting. {¶ 39} Respectfully, I dissent. {¶ 40} The case does not present an issue of constitutional magnitude for interpretation but rather raises a political question for resolution by the political branches of government. As the lead opinion articulates, the question is “Did the Ohio Controlling Board violate R.C. 127.17?” L

163 F.3d 516 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 80 UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. Alfred AFLATOONI,Plaintiff-Appellant,v.KITSAP PHYSICIANS SERVICES, a non-profit Washingtoncorporation; Northwest Diagnostic Imaging, Inc., aWashington professional services corporation; PathologyAssociates of Kitsap County, a Washington Partnership;Ronald Reimer, MD and Susan L. Reimer, his wife; Paul S.McCulloug

Dismiss and Opinion Filed June 27, 2013. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01140-CV DOUBLE DIAMOND-DELAWARE, INC., DOUBLE DIAMOND, INC., WHITE BLUFF CLUB CORP., NATIONAL RESORT MANAGEMENT CO., R. MICHAEL WARD, FRED CURRAN, GEORGE COLLINS, LARRY

DISMISS; and Opinion Filed October 7, 2013. Court of Appeals S In The Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00893-CV DOUBLE DIAMOND DELAWARE, INC., DOUBLE DIAMOND, INC., WHITE BLUFF CLUB CORP., NATIONAL RESORT MANAGEMENT CO., R. MICHAEL WARD, FRED CURRAN, GEORGE COLLINS, LAR

255 B.R. 439 (2000) In re George M. COLE, Debtor. Leland Stanley, Plaintiff, v. George M. Cole and Enid Bone and Joint Clinic, Inc., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 91-20137-7. Adversary No. 91-2014. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division. November 28, 2000. *440 Roger Cox, Sanders Baker, P.C., Amarillo, TX,

Judgment rendered October 1, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 56,493-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA ***** ETC TEXAS PIPELIN

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge. In this, the fourth interlocutory appeal in the Kansas Public Employees’ Retirement System (KPERS) case, KPERS seeks review of the district court’s1 order enjoining KPERS from prosecuting lawsuits in Kansas based on the same claims being litigated in this case. Because we conclude that the effect of the Kansas lawsuits is to subvert the district court’s removal jurisdiction

766 F.Supp.2d 1305 (2011) Ignacio Damian FIGUEROA, Plaintiff, v. MERSCORP, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 10-61296-CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division. January 31, 2011. *1307 Kenneth Eric Trent, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff. Andrew Benjamin Boese, Robert Mark Brochin, Morgan, Lewis &a;

O’Donnell, J., dissenting. {¶ 54} I respectfully dissent. In my view, today’s holding leads to an unjust result and will adversely affect business in Ohio, much of which involves complex transactions that must of necessity be taken on a step-by-step and handshake *100basis. This court should instead join th

958 F.Supp. 466 (1996) Darryl C. O'CONNELL, Plaintiff, v. Shirley S. CHATER,[1] Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant. No. CV 95-3704-RMC. United States District Court, C.D. California. April 8, 1996. Judith S. Leland, Downey, CA, for Plaintiff. Mary L. Perry, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant. <

ACCEPTED 01-14-00870-cv FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/8/2015 12:33:22 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

[Cite as Taylor v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P., 130 Ohio St.3d 411, 2011-Ohio-5262.] TAYLOR, SUPT., APPELLEE, v. ERNST & YOUNG, L.L.P., APPELLANT. [Cite as Taylor v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P., 130 Ohio St.3d 411, 2011-Ohio-5262.] Insurance—Liquidation of insolvent insurance company—Superintendent of insurance as liquidator not bound by insurer’s arbitration agreement. (No. 2010-1324—Submitted May 25, 2011—Decided October 18, 2011.) A

203 F.Supp.2d 555 (2002) AUDIO INVESTMENTS, an Irrevocable Trust, Plaintiff, v. Dewey L. ROBERTSON, Sr., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Roger Davenport, a/k/a Roger-Orme: Davenport; and the United States of America, Third-Party Defendants. No. 8:002847-20BG. United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenwood Division. April 19, 2002.

JANICE M. HOLDER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WILLIAM M. BARKER, C.J., and CORNELIA A. CLARK and GARY R. WADE, JJ., joined. In this appeal, the primary issue is whether a durable power of attorney for health care authorized the attorney-in-fact to enter into an arbitration agreement as part of a contract admitting the principal to a nursing home and thereby to wai