Cases

681 S.E.2d 515 (2009) Raymond J. MILESKI, Plaintiff, v. Robert H. McCONVILLE, Jr., individually and as Executor and Trustee of the Will and Trust of Magdalen P. Mileski, Edward W. Najam, Jr., individually and as Executor and Trustee of the Will and Trust of Magdalen P. Mileski, Anne F. McConville, Dorothy F. Findlen, Mary Helen Parker Adams, and Wachovia Bank, N.A., as Trustee of the Magdalen P. Mileski Trust, Defendants. No

MARING, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part. [¶20] I concur with the majority opinion with the exception of the conclusion the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Julie’s motion for a new trial on the ground that the jury’s verdict was perverse, insufficient in light of the evidence, and irreconcilable. I dissent from this part of the opinion.

02-11-092-CR

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-11-00092-CR CHRISTOPHER MARK TAYLOR APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------- FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 3 OF DENTON COU

JOHN P. MOORE, Circuit Judge. Cynthia A. Anglemyer brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that she was improperly terminated from her employment at Hamilton County Hospital. Ms. Angle-myer raised both federal and pendent state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Ms. Anglemyer’s federal claims alleged her termination violated her Fourteenth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights. Her state l

CLAY, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which MOORE, J., joined. SILER, J. (pp. 525-28), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. OPINION CLAY, Circuit Judge. Petitioner David Eugene Matthews, who was sentenced to death for murder by the State of Kentucky, appeals the district court’s order denying Petitioner’s claims and dismissing his petition

ORDER GRANTING UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge This matter is before this Court the motion for summary judgment of Defendant University of San Diego (“USD”). The motion has been fully briefed, and the Court held oral argument on August 3, 2017. For the following reasons, the motion is granted. I. General Bac

433 F.Supp.2d 613 (2006) Walter J. VIOLA, Founder of the Anti Roman Catholic Defamation League (ARCDL), Plaintiff, v. A & E TELEVISION NETWORKS a Corporation, Michael S. Dell, Chairman of the Board for A & E Television Networks; Individually, and Kevin B. Rollins, President, CEO and Director for A & E Television Networks; Individually, Defendant. No. 2:05-cv-1788. United States District Cou

203 Ga. App. 148 (1992) 416 S.E.2d 127 DEESE et al. v. CARROLL CITY COUNTY HOSPITAL et al. A91A2185. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided February 18, 1992. Reconsideration Denied March 3, 1992. Word & Flinn, Gerald P. Word, for appellants. Webb, Carlock, Copeland, Semler & Stair, Patricia M. Anagnost

58 F.3d 533 130 Lab.Cas. P 57,939, 10 IER Cases 1398 Cynthia A. ANGLEMYER, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.HAMILTON COUNTY HOSPITAL; E.D. Reed, aka Skip Reed, SteveSchell; Larry Fallwell; Zeno Gould; JimmyGrilliot; Magdalene Haslett; andThelma Warner, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-3342. United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit.

Filed 3/5/98 by Clerk of Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 1998 ND 51 Julie A. Nesseth, formerly known as Julie A. Powers, Plaintiff and Appellant v.

550 F.3d 822 (2008) Alexis Holyweek SAREI; Paul E. Nerau; Thomas Tamausi; Phillip Miriori; Gregory Kopa; Methodius Nesiko; Aloysius Moses; Rapheal Niniku; Gabriel Tareasi; Linus Takinu, Leo Wuis; Michael Akope; Benedict Pisi; Thomas Kobuko; John Tamuasi; Norman Mouvo; John Osani; Ben Korus; Namira Kawona; Joanne Bosco; John Pigolo; Magdalene Pigolo, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.<

*689OPINION Opinion by: Jason Pulliam, Justice Introduction This litigation arises, from a dispute involving three siblings’ agreement to pool and share royalty interests in each of their three separate tracts of land. This appeal concerns the issue whether one sibling’s undivided royalty interest held in the other tr

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court of chancery by Advisory Master Moore. *Page 232 For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, BROGAN, HEHER, KAYS, HETFIELD, WELLS, KERNEY, JJ. 13. For reversal — None.

OPINION OF THE COURT W. LOWELL BRAY, JR., Circuit Judge. FINAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE came before the Court for nonjury trial on March 28, 29, 30 and 31, 1988, upon the plaintiffs’ Complaint for Declaratory Judgment for Unconscionable Rent against the defendant, DOUGLAS H. BELCHER, d/b/a CLUB WILDWOOD MOBILE HOME VILLAGE. Plaintiffs’ Complaint seeks a declaration th

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEXIS HOLYWEEK SAREI; PAUL E.  NERAU; THOMAS TAMAUSI; PHILLIP MIRIORI; GREGORY KOPA; METHODIUS NESIKO; ALOYSIUS MOSES; RAPHEAL NINIKU; GABRIEL TAREASI; LINUS TAKINU, LEO WUIS; MICHAEL AKOPE; BENEDICT PISI; THOMAS KOBUKO; JOHN TAMUASI; NORMAN MOUVO; JOHN OSANI; BEN No. 02-56256 KORUS; NAMIRA KAWONA; JOANNE BOSCO; JOHN PIGOLO; MAGDALENE

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. “How much contrition should be expected of a defendant is hard for us to say. This surely is a question better addressed to the discretion of the trial court.” United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 634, 73 S.Ct. 894, 898, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953). Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunc-tive (and later monetary) relief against various defendants1

671 F.3d 736 (2011) Alexis Holyweek SAREI; Paul E. Nerau; Thomas Tamausi; Phillip Miriori; Gregory Kopa; Methodius Nesiko; Aloysius Moses; Rapheal Niniku; Gabriel Tareasi; Linus Takinu, Leo Wuis; Michael Akope; Benedict Pisi; Thomas Kobuko; John Tamausi; Norman Mouvo; John Osani; Ben Korus; Namira Kawona; Joanne Bosco; John Pigolo; Magdalene Pigolo, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.<

962 F.2d 1517 22 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1081, 74 Ed. Law Rep. 1073 COMMITTEE FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT, an unincorporatedassociation of students, faculty, and other members of theuniversity community of Oklahoma State University, includingthe following members; Richard L. Cummings; CharlesEdgley, members of the faculty of Oklahoma State University,individually and as members of the Committee for the First

Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. An amendment to a Texas statute that went into effect on September 1, 1993, authorized conviction of certain sexual offenses on the victim’s testimony alone. The previous statute required the victim’s testimony plus other corroborating evidence to convict the offender. The question presented is whether that amendment may be applied in a trial for offe