Cases

WATERMAN, Justice. This appeal presents the narrow question of whether the relief-required rule (also called the exoneration rule) applies to a convicted criminal suing one of his defense attorneys for legal malpractice over an alleged missed opportunity to shorten his period of supervised probation. This rule ordinarily requires proof the client had been exonerated from the underlying

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON COMPLAINT SEEKING DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY NEIL P. OLACK, Bankruptcy Judge. There came on for trial on July 18, 2012 (the “Trial”), the Complaint Seeking Dam*239ages for Violation of the Automatic Stay (the “Complaint”) (Adv. Dkt. 1)1 filed by Touya J. Johnso

Case: 09-60406 Document: 00511563892 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 5, 2011 No. 09

REVISED AUGUST 11, 2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August

REVISED AUGUST 23, 2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August

REVISED AUGUST 29, 2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August

KING, Circuit Judge, joined by EDITH H. JONES, Chief Judge, E. GRADY JOLLY, W. EUGENE DAVIS, JERRY E. SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, CARL E. STEWART, EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, HAYNES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges: For the third time, the en banc court is called upon to decide whether a public school student has stated a constitutional claim against her school for its failure to prot

OPINION SCHRODER, Judge. This is a planning and zoning ease which asks how binding a preliminary plat is. Street dedications under subdivision regulations, adopted pursuant to Chapter 100 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes, are compared to dedications under KRS 82.400 and common law dedications. The parties are well aware’ of who played which part in this case scenario, so for

*543In a hybrid action, inter aha, for a judgment declaring that 15 RCNY 18-82 (g) (1) is invalid, to recover damages pursuant to Public Health Law § 1105 (1), and to recover damages for the taking of real property without just compensation, and proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, among other things, to review a determination of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection dated Jun

Judgment rendered February 25, 2026. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 56,732-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA ***** S

472 F.Supp. 325 (1979) Doris M. WATSON, Plaintiff, v. MAGEE WOMEN'S HOSPITAL, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 76-1136. United States District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. May 30, 1979. William S. Hays, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff. Robert H. Shoop, Jr., Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant. OPINION COHILL, District Judge.

19 Cal.2d 449 (1942) BEN BARD, as Special Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. L. E. KENT, Individually and as Director, etc., Appellants. L. A. No. 17820. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. Feb. 10, 1942. Bautzer & Ryan, Gregson Bautzer, G. Bentley Ryan, Perry Bertram and Bertin Weyl, Jr., for Appellants. Paul Vallee and Jerome H. Kann for Respond

HaNdy, C. J., delivered the opinion of the court. This was a petition in the Court of Probate for the allotment *168of dower to tlie widow of James Young, deceased, in Ms real estate. It appears by tbe petition and the answer of the appellee, the administrator of the deceased husband, that the appellant and the deceased were married pr

*246 By the Court, E. Darwin Smith, J. This is an action in equity. The complaint invokes the equitable powers of this court to restrain by a perpetual injunction the imposition of a tax which will be a lien upon the plaintiffs' lands and a cloud upon their title thereto. An injunction is the peculiar process of a court of equity, and it can only

Bell, J. This suit was instituted by Henry K. White against Felix W. Magee, and Martha Magee his wife, upon a promissory note executed by Felix W. Magee to one William O. Roe, and transferred by Roe to White. The petition charged that the note was executed in settlement of an account for goods, wares, and merchandise furnished and delivered by the said Roe to the defendants; that the goods, wares, &c., so furnished and delive

STONE, J. The strongest cases in our decisions, favoring the defense set up by the cross bill, are, Read v. Walker, 18 Ala. 323; Smith v. Robertson, 23 Ala. 312, and Lanier v. Hill, 25 Ala. 554. In Read v. Walker, although it is not made an absolutely controlling point in the opinion, yet the bill charged, that if the land were lost, the other property of the vendor Avould not be sufficient to indemnity Walker

By the Court, Harris, J. The question presented in this case is one of jurisdiction. It is, whether the statute has con*353ferred upon the surrogate the power of deciding upon the validity of a claim against an estate, when such claim is disputed, and the right of the surrogate to make such determination, is also denied. Before considering this question it may be

PARSONS, J. The defendant’s counsel does not contend that the writing, which in the bill of exceptions is called a deed of gift, was an escrow, and we are entirely satisfied it was not. Hence, in this opinion, we will treat it, not as a writing delivered to a third person as an escrow, but as a deed. But the counsel contends, nevertheless, that Elizabeth C. Acre, now Mrs. Tucker, had not a present right of possession of the slave

In ebbob to the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Alabama. Mr. justice S wayne delivered the opinion of the court. The defendant in error sued the plaintiffs in error upon a bond which recited that Henry Yoorhes had been appointed an agent of the insurance company, and was conditioned for his paying over to the company all moneys belonging to it which he should receive. The breach alleged

92 U.S. 93 (____) MAGEE ET AL. v. MANHATTAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. Supreme Court of United States. *96 Mr. P. Phillips for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. J.M. Carlisle and Mr. John D. McPherson for the defendant in error. *97 MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court. The defen