Cases

Per Curiam. In this appeal from the judgment dissolving her marriage to the defendant, the plaintiff challenges the orders of the trial court concerning custody of the couple’s minor child, visitation rights, and the distribution of the marital assets. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. The plaintiff and the defendant were married in 1968 and have three children, only one of whom is presently a minor. In 19

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 15-1-03018-5, James R. Orlando, J., entered February 19, 2016. Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Worswick, J., concurred in by Bjorgen, C.J., and Lee, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE McGRATH delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Graham Joseph Macker appeals from an order of the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, revoking his suspended sentence and committing him to the custody of the Department of Corrections. We affirm. ¶2 The following issu

PER CURIAM. Joseph Macker, defendant, appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 3.800 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. He argues that he was not awarded the appropriate credit for time served at the time he was sentenced for violating his probation. The state concedes that the defendant was erroneously awarded a total of 5,197 days, where he was actually entitled to an awar

500 So.2d 256 (1986) Joseph MACKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 85-2687. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. December 16, 1986. Rehearing Denied February 3, 1987. *257 Harvey S. Swickle, North Miami Beach, for appellant. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Susan Odzer Hugentug

49 Cal.App.4th 1528 (1996) VENTURA COUNTY NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GARY A. MACKER et al., Defendants and Respondents. Docket No. B094467. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six. October 9, 1996. *1529 COUNSEL Hill & Sandford, Michael L. Sandford and Timothy J. Trager for Plainti

196 Mich. App. 6 (1992) 492 N.W.2d 472 DYKEMA v. GUS MACKER ENTERPRISES, INC Docket No. 127868. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided September 8, 1992, at 9:55 A.M. Gruel, Mills, Nims & Pylman (by Grant J. Gruel and Brion J. Brooks), for the plaintiffs. Cholette, Perkins & Buchanan (by Robert J. Ril

AINSWORTH, Circuit Judge: In this narcotics prosecution defendants-appellants Joe Maeker and Walter Flans-burg, along with codefendants Howard White and Robert Anthony Mineo, were charged in a six-count indictment filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida as follows: Count I charged all four defe

JOHN J. KEHOE, Circuit Judge. This appeal was dismissed on February 14, 1964 for failure to prosecute. The appellant has moved for rehearing of the order of dismissal and urges that the burden of filing the record on appeal is upon the metropolitan court clerk, not upon the appellant. The court file in this case contains only a certified copy of the notice of appeal and two stipulations between counsel exten

Callaghan, J. The plaintiff conducts a moving picture and vaudeville theatre. The defendant Macker is the president of the Moving Picture Machine Operators’ Protective Union, Local 306. The theatre conducted by the plaintiff is not “ unionized,” although the plaintiff has from time to time employed members of the union, and has never refused to employ an individual because of his membership in the union. It, at one time

*146The first error assigned is, that notice was given that a motion to ■dissolve the injunction would be made on the fourth day of the term, and the motion was not made until the sixth. When notice is given that a motion will be made on a particular day, unless it bo prevented by unavoidable accidents, the motion should be made on that day, and either decided on or continued to some subse

20 U.S. 530 (1822) 7 Wheat. 530 MACKER'S Heirs v. THOMAS. Supreme Court of United States. March 15, 1822. Mr. Justice WASHINGTON delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a writ of error to a judgment of the Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky. The defendant brought a writ of right in that Court against John Macker, the ancestor of the plainti

MEMORANDUM SURRICK, District Judge. Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 50.) For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion will be denied. 1. BACKGROUND This is an action for race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Pennsylvani

759 F.Supp.2d 580 (2010) Thomas BURLINGTON v. NEWS CORPORATION, Fox Television Stations, Inc., and Fox Television Stations of Philadelphia, Inc. Civil Action No. 09-1908. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. December 28, 2010. *583 Laura Carlin Mattiacci, Rahul Munshi, Stephen G. Console, Andrew L. Mackerer, Susan M.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ANN MARIE DONIO, United States Magistrate Judge. Presently before the Court are two pretrial motions concerning the scope of discovery in this putative class action suit concerning alleged gender discrimination by Defendant, Lockheed Martin Corporation, and a motion concerning the timing of discovery given that the class has not yet been certified pursuant to Fed. R. C

MERRITT, Circuit Judge, dissenting. This 25-year drug sentence is one more war-on-drugs case (among the thousands assigned to the federal courts each year by the Department of Justice) where a drug-addicted, young, black male goes to a federal prison for an unnecessary amount of time. Like many others, it is a case of grossly unfair sentencing disparity — in this case, for example, the leader of the conspiracy g

MEMORANDUM MATTICE, District Judge. Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendant MPW Industrial Services, Inc. (“MPW”), alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. *365§ 1981; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 4-21-101 to -905; and the Fair Labor Standards

191 F.Supp.2d 962 (2002) Kimberly C. CAVENDER, Plaintiff, v. US XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant. No. 1:00-CV-336. United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Chattanooga. March 8, 2002. *963 Phillip E Fleenor, Jane M Stahl, Shumacker & Thompson, Chattanooga, TN, for Kimberly C Cavender, plaintiff. Rosemarie L

433 F.Supp.2d 879 (2004) NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, v. KNOXVILLE CAST STONE, INC., Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, and American & Foreign Insurance Company, Inc., Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, v. Sequatchie Concrete Services Inc., Knoxville Cast Stone, Inc., Gatlinburg L.L.C, and Frizzell Construction Company, Inc. Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs. Nos. 3:02-CV-623, 3:02-CV-632.

OPINION McMURRAY, Judge. This case has a long and torturous history through both the state and federal court systems. The appellant, Ernest Oliver, was attempting to “blow the whistle” regarding certain alleged activities of his employer, Hydro-Vac, one of the defendants, when his employment was terminated. In addition to the whistle blowing charge against Hydro-Vac, Oliver charged over eighty oth