Cases

741 F.Supp. 1281 (1990) Mark TARKA v. William H. CUNNINGHAM, et al. Civ. No. A-89-CA-1092. United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division. March 23, 1990. *1282 Mark Tarka, Austin, Tex., pro se. Judy Ponder, Asst. Atty. Gen., General Litigation Div., Austin, Tex., for defendants. ORDER NO

PER CURIAM: The major issue in this case is whether appellant was a “student” at the University of Texas at Austin for purposes of gaining access to his admission file there in accordance with the Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act of 1974 (“FERPA”) 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. We agree with the district court’s conclusion that a perso

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge: Given pro se appellant Tarka’s facility at writing and his persistence, combined with his practical litigation experience, 1 he might logically have chosen to attend law school rather than to pursue a science curriculum. Tarka was, however, a

MEMORANDUM ** Mark Tarka appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) motions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Tarka brought suit against Montana State University employees and students under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 2000e-2(a), alleging civil rights violations, discrimination, and libel. The district court,

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee R. Roth, S.), entered April 6, 2006, which granted the petition for letters of administration with respect to the goods, chattels and credits of decedent Mark Tarka, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Respondent, who was long estranged from her deceased brother, objects to the grant of letters of administration to the Public Administrator. However, the Surrogate’s Court appropriately exerc

OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. Judgments of conviction reversed on the law and accusatory instruments dismissed. In 48 purported informations, defendant was charged with violating multiple sections of the Code of the Village of East Hills (Code of Village of East Hills §§ 193-7, 214-13, 214-24 [A] [7]; § 214-128 [B] [3]; § 214-60 [A]; § 223-10). Defendant was found guilty of the aforementioned c

Opinion PELLEGRINO, J. The plaintiff, Jude Loiselle, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, Browning & Browning Real Estate, LLC (Browning), Mary Beth Malin, and Raymond Pre-ece.1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims the trial court erred in (1) improperly admitting into evidence a portion of Malin’s testimony at trial; (2) failin

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

Opinion FOTI, J. The plaintiff, Melanie Tarka, appeals from the trial court’s decision rendering judgment in accordance with an attorney trial referee’s report. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the facts found did not constitute (1) an invasion of privacy and (2) a violation of the Connecti*48cut Un

OPINION OF THE COURT Per Curiam. Judgment of conviction rendered May 19, 1999 affirmed. Defendant’s present objection to the court’s apparent failure to formally arraign him on the prosecutor’s information, to the extent reviewable without timely protest below (compare, People v White, 115 Misc 2d 800, 804-805; see also, People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354), is lacking in merit.

(2008) Anna BYRA-GRZEGORCZYK, Plaintiff, v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, Defendant. Sadia Abid, Plaintiff, v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Defendant. Nos. 3:06cv905 (MRK), 3:06cv1035 (MRK). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. August 20, 2008. RULING AND ORDER MARK R. KRAVITZ, District Judge. Pending before the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARD TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGEMENT AND DEFENDANT SOREL’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT (Dkt. Nos. 12, 21 & 26) PONSOR, District Judge. This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman for a report and recommendation regarding Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 12) and Defendant Sor

931 A.2d 924 (2007) 284 Conn. 225 Martin FONCELLO, Jr. v. Richard AMOROSSI et al. No. 17832. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued April 16, 2007. Decided October 16, 2007. *925 Kenneth A. Votre, New Haven, with whom was Michael C. McMinn, for the appellant (plaintiff). Thomas W. Bee

756 A.2d 138 (2000) Thomas J. TARKA, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted on Briefs April 28, 2000. Decided July 14, 2000. *139 Stewart J. Greenleaf, Blue Bell, for appellant. Marc A. Werlinsky and Timothy P. Wile

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-17-00575-CV IN THE INTEREST OF V.M.T., a Child From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017-CI-13681 Honorable Cathleen M. Stryke

MEMORANDUM & ORDER DEBORAH A. BATTS, United States District Judge. The instant action was filed by Grant Phillips and Scott Phillips (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) on May 9, 2016, against Citibank N.A. (“Citibank”), Neal Dorman, individually and in his representative capacity (“Dornpan”), Ira Schapiro, in his representative capacity (“Schapiro”), Lightstone Acquisitions III, LLC, LSG 365 Bond Street LLC,

Opinion LANDAU, J. The defendant, Charles Hamen, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Michael A. Kallas, in accordance with the report of an attorney trial referee.1 On appeal to this court, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly accepted the referee’s report,2 which concluded that the defendant

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. This patent infringement suit concerns the antihypertension drug having the brand name Tarka®. Tarka® is a combination of two active ingredients into a single dosage product: the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor tran-dolapril, and the calcium channel blocker (also called “calcium antagonist”) vera-pamil hydrochloride. The combination drug is

Armstrong, J. In 1992-1994 the town of Dartmouth widened Faunce Comer Road, a north-south road that intersects with Interstate Route 195. None of the property of the plaintiff Harte, who does business as Harte Toyota, was taken for the project. He seeks damages, however, under G. L. c. 79, § 12, based on a claim of substantial diminution in the accessibility of his auto dealership to potential customers. The judge allowed the to