Cases

OPINION COHN, Senior District Judge. I. This case arises from the City of Mason’s grant of a special use permit allowing a property owner to operate a beauty salon in a residential neighborhood and pave the rear yard for parking. Plaintiffs are neighboring property owners who claim they have suffered damage caused by water runoff

132 Nev., Advance Opinion 56 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA MARY LOU CORNELLA, No. 56329 Petitioner, vs. CHURCHILL COUNTY, STATE OF FILED NEVADA, JUSTICE COURT OF NEW RIVER TOWNSHIP; THE HONORABLE AUG 12 2016 MICHAEL D. RICHARDS; THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CHURCHILL; AND THE HONO

132 Nev., Advance Opinion 56 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA MARY LOU CORNELLA, No. 56329 Petitioner, vs. CHURCHILL COUNTY, STATE OF FILED NEVADA, JUSTICE COURT OF NEW RIVER TOWNSHIP; THE HONORABLE AUG 12 2016 MICHAEL D. RICHARDS; THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CHURCHILL; AND THE HONO

JOHN P. MOORE, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from the district court’s judgment allowing Santa Ana to eject defendants Alfredo Baca and Mary Lou Baca from a 131-acre parcel of land and to recover damages caused by their trespass. Defendants argue the district court erred in relying upon the boundaries established by an 1813 adjudication, rather than upon the boundaries set fo

WENTWORTH, Judge. Appellant seeks review of a Career Service Commission order by which appellee’s dismissal from employment was reduced to a 30-month suspension. Appellee seeks review by cross-appeal. We affirm the order appealed. Appellee was advised of appellant’s intent. to dismiss her from employment as a University police officer for conduct unbecoming a public employee by “involvement in the possess

307 S.E.2d 817 (1983) Lonnie R. LANGLEY and wife, Mildred F. Langley and Frances Hedgepeth Langley v. Mary Lou MOORE. No. 822DC1128. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. October 18, 1983. *818 Rodman, Holscher & Francisco by Edward N. Rodman, Washington, for plaintiffs-appellees. Wayland J. Sermons, Jr., Washington, for

PREWITT, Judge. The marriage of the parties was dissolved by decree of June 12, 1986. A property settlement agreement signed by the parties was found conscionable and incorporated into the decree. It provided that appellant would pay respondent $350.00 per month maintenance commencing June 1, 1986, with the last payment September 1, 1989. On June 18, 1987, no maintenance had been paid and $4,550 was thus due. On that date, r

473 S.E.2d 659 (1996) Louis MOORE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank and Mary Lou SULLIVAN, Defendants-Appellants. No. COA95-1075. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. August 20, 1996. *660 Frank Cherry, Wilmington, for plaintiff-appellee. Peterson & Becker by R. Glen Peterson, Leland, for defendants-appellants.

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-

FARLEY, Judge: This case is before the Court on the appellant’s application for an award of attorney fees and expenses totaling $49,252.52 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The Court has jurisdiction to award attorney fees pursuant to section 506 of the Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992, Pub.L. No. 102-572, 106 Stat. 4506, 4513 (FCAA), which amended 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(F) to make EAJA

OPINION Appellant entered a plea of not guilty before a jury to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(1)(B). He was convicted and the jury assessed punishment, enhanced under TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. §12.42(d), at imprisonment for forty-five years. We reverse the judgment of conviction and remand for a new trial. Appellant's point of error does not re

821 S.W.2d 429 (1991) IJ. MOORE, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 10-89-055-CR. Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco. December 18, 1991. Rehearing Denied January 8, 1992. Kenneth E. Sanek, Irving, for appellant. Mary Lou Shipley, County Atty., Waxahachie, for appellee. Before THOMAS, CJ., and CUMMINGS and VANCE, JJ.

NUMBER 13-23-00297-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG MPII, INC. D/B/A MISSION PARK FUNERAL CHAPELS AND CEMETERIES, Appellant, v. MARY LOU HIDALGO, ROSEMARY JIMENEZ, GENARO SALINAS JR., GERARDO SALINAS, AND GEORGE SALINAS,

304 S.C. 544 (1991) 405 S.E.2d 833 William H. MOORE, as Executor of the Estate of Fannie Lou Moore, Deceased, Appellant v. Arthur S. JENKINS, M.D., Mary Loretta Sullivan Swan, M.D., and Beaufort County Memorial Hospital, Respondents. 23410 Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard March 18, 1991. Decided May 28, 1991. Samuel

ACCEPTED 12-14-00262 TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 7/10/2015 4:55:37 PM

MOORE, J. The plaintiff sued the State of Louisiana, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office of State Police, for defamation damages arising out of a news release by Troop E of the Louisiana State Police regarding a fatal automobile accident. The news release named the plaintiff, “John Martin, Jr., (W/M 87yrs)” as the driver of a pick-up truck on La. Hwy. 156 in Winn Parish, of which he lost control and rolled sev

Filed 9/30/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of 2d Civil No. B253538 LESTER MOORE. (Super. Ct. No. 56-2010-00387487- PR-CP-OXN

WATERMAN, Circuit Judge. The appellants, Sebastian Della Uni-versita and Mary Lou Russano, were convicted upon an indictment filed August 14, 1957, which charged that “Commencing on or about the 1st day of January, 1951 and continuously thereafter” until the filing of the indictment they had conspired with certain named persons, inclu

González, J. ¶1 This case asks us to examine the nature of a nuisance per se claim. Generally, those alleging that their neighbors’ activities are a nuisance must prove that the activities are, on balance, unreasonable and cause some inconvenience, discomfort, or interference. When, however, an activity is a nuisance per se, plaintiffs need not show that the activity is also unreasonable. Here, the plaintiffs sued their neighbors

515 F.Supp. 509 (1981) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Allen E. MOORE and Mary Lou Moore, Defendants. No. CR-3-81-08. United States District Court, S. D. Ohio, W. D. May 27, 1981. Patrick J. Hanley, Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff. Charles M. Meyer, Cincinnati, Ohio, John Kennedy Lynch, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant. DECISION AND ENTR