Cases

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Starling v. State, 842 So.2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Davis v. State, 839 So.2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), rev. denied, 848 So.2d 1153 (Fla.2003). Accord Ozell v. State, 837 So.2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA), red. denied, 847 So.2d 978 (Fla. 2003). SHARP, W. GRIFFIN and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

954 F.Supp. 204 (1997) Ralph BOEMIO, Plaintiff, v. LOVE'S RESTAURANT and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Civil No. 96-1136 AJB. United States District Court, S.D. California. January 30, 1997. *205 Amy B. Vandeveld, Law Offices of Amy B. Vandeveld, San Diego, CA, for plaintiff. Robert P. Lowell, Lowell and Robbin

May 13, 2021 Supreme Court No. 2019-249-Appeal. No. 2020-79-Appeal. (P 15-246M) Lowell Harris : v. : Priscilla Evans. : NOTICE: This opinion is subject to f

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 49196 GREGORY P. LOWELL, ) ) Claimant-Appellant, ) Boise, May 2023 Term ) v. ) Opinion filed: August 3, 2023 ) HUMAN DYNAMICS AND DIAGNOSTICS, ) Mela

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-0012-06 <

886 So.2d 276 (2004) Rudolph LOVE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 5D04-2695. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. November 5, 2004. Rudolph Love, Lowell, pro se. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PLEUS, J. Rudolph

95 F.Supp.2d 264 (2000) William GORDON and Kay Gordon, Plaintiffs, v. Pam LOWELL, individually and in her official capacity as agent and/or employee of the County of Berks, George Kovarie, individually and in his official capacity as Director of Berks County Children and Youth Services, *265 Berks County Children and Youth Services, a state agency administered by the county of Berks, and Berks County, a politi

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON SEPTEMBE R SESSION, 1998 FILED October 30, 1998 STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9805-CC-00134 Cecil Crowson, Jr. ) Appel

JAMES B. LOWELL, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.Lowell v. CommissionerDocket No. 7151.United States Board of Tax Appeals

*64OPINION. Littleton : The petitioner contends that he is entitled to a deduction in 1919 of a loss sustained in that year of one-half the value of the debenture notes of the Sugar Corporation then held by him and, apparently, at the hearing abandoned the claim that a deduction could be allowed on account of a debt which had been determined to be worthle

ORDER Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Scheidler et al. v. National Organization for Women, et al., — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 1264, 164 L.Ed.2d 10 (2006), with respect to Nos. 99-3076, 99-3336, 99-3891, and 99-3892, the judgment of the district court in this case is Reversed, the injunction ordered by that court is Vacated, and the case is hereby Remanded to the district court for entry of judgment in favor of the defenda

BRORBY, Circuit Judge. Lowell Staats Mining Company, Inc. (Staats), an independent mining contractor, entered into a contract with Pioneer Ura-van, Inc. (Uravan) to develop mining property owned by Uravan. When Uravan terminated the contract, Staats sued Uravan for breach of the contract. Uravan then brought a separate suit against Staats seeking to recover overpayments for ore deliveries under the contract. Staats filed a t

OWENS, J. ¶ 1 Gonzaga University discharged David Martin, the plaintiff in this case. Martin sued Gonzaga, alleging that he was wrongfully discharged because of his whistle-blowing, and asserting a private claim under RCW 49.12.250 for an alleged violation of that statute's requirement that Gonzaga provide him with his complete personnel file. Gonzaga successfully moved for summary

878 F.2d 1259 LOWELL STAATS MINING COMPANY, INC., a Colorado corporation,Third-party Plaintiff-Appellant,v.PIONEER URAVAN, INC., a Texas corporation, Defendant-Appellee,andPioneer Corporation and Pioneer Nuclear, Inc., Third-partyDefendants-Appellees. No. 86-2626. United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit. June 19, 1989.

67 F.Supp.2d 499 (1999) David McGRATH, Plaintiff, v. Mahanoy Counselor John L. JOHNSON, Mahanoy Superintendent Martin L. Dragovich, Mahanoy Deputy Superintendent Edward Klem, Mahanoy Unit Manager James Unell, Mahanoy Security Officer John Doe, DOC Secretary Martin Horn, DOC Deputy Commissioner William J. Love, DOC Coordinator of Classification Don Williamson, Pittsburgh Superintendent James S. Price, and Pittsburgh Counselor Dan DeFlora, Defendan

798 F.Supp. 360 (1992) William T. BRIGHT, Ed King, Dee Barwick, Lowell Lawson, Frank Jorgensen, Plaintiffs, v. QSP, INC., Defendant. Civ. A. No. 2:90-0039. United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division. August 28, 1992. *361 F.T. Graff, Jr., Bowles, Rice, McDavid, Graff & Love, Charleston, W.Va., for p

LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge: Several female alien detainees filed lawsuits alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal Tort Claims Act, among others. The district court ruled in the defendants’ favor on various grounds. We AFFIRM in part, and REVERSE and REMAND in part. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL ' BACKGROUND The plaintif

529 F.Supp. 17 (1981) Nancy H. LOWELL, Plaintiff, v. GLIDDEN-DURKEE, DIVISION OF SCM CORPORATION, a New York corporation, Defendant. No. 80 C 3270. United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D. March 16, 1981. On Motion to Reconsider April 13, 1981. *18 Marvin Rosenblum, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

396 F.3d 807 NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.Joseph M. SCHEIDLER, et al., Defendants-Appellants. No. 99-3076. No. 99-3336. No. 99-3891. No. 99-3892. No. 01-2050. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. January 28, 2005

1 Reported in 219 N.W. 913. Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he had rendered services for defendant as an accountant and income tax specialist which resulted in a saving to defendant of more than $1,000 in the amount of its income tax, and that the reasonable value of such services was 25 per cent of the amount so saved. He asked judgment for the sum of $250. The answer denied e