Cases

Dearington, J. The defendant was convicted on a charge of trespassing in violation of § 53-103 of the General Statutes1 and has appealed. In his appeal, he has assigned error in the court’s failure to correct the finding and in its conclusions. The defendant’s first three assignments of error relate to the trial court’s failure to find certain facts set forth in paragraphs appeari

886 So.2d 482 (2004) Kentrell DORSEY v. J. RAY MCDERMOTT, INC. No. 2003 CA 2264. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. June 25, 2004. *485 Lawrence D. Wiedemann, New Orleans, Mauri Agosta, Labadieville, for Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellee Kentrell Dorsey. Patricia A. Krebs, Allan C. Crane, New Orleans, for Defendant/Ap

743 So.2d 251 (1999) Harry BURGESS v. C.F. BEAN CORPORATION. No. 98-CA-3072. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. August 18, 1999. Writ Denied November 24, 1999. *253 Lawrence Blake Jones, David C. Whitmore, Scheuermann & Jones, New Orleans, LA, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee.

STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. David Bruce McDermott II appeals his conviction on charges of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise and interstate travel in aid of unlawful activity. He makes the following arguments: 1 (1) The district court violated his Sixth Amendment right of self-representation by refusin

No petition for Certiorari was filed. The bill in this cause was filed to collect a negotiable promissory note in the sum of $500 dated October 18, 1918, executed by the defendants, M.C. Stephens and wife, Lula B. Stephens, to S.R. Rambo, by said Rambo endorsed to the complainant, J.H. Bean, before maturity and for value, and at the time of the execution, sale and delivery of the note to complainant there was no equity existing that could have been urged against

BEAN, J., Dissenting. — I agree in the questions of law as announced by Mr. Justice Brown, but cannot concur in the application in this case. I therefore dissent.

113 A.2d 875 (1955) STATE of Delaware v. Boyd BEAN. No. 28. Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle. May 16, 1955. Keil & Keil, John M. Bader and Harold Shaffer, Wilmington, for defendant in support of the motion. *876 Herbert L. Cobin, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., and Wilfred J. Smith, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State

Argued October 26, 1937. This appeal grew out of a proceeding in equity to partition oil producing land owned by plaintiff and defendant in equal shares and concerns a claim of plaintiff to interest on an award and plaintiff's liability for poundage on money paid into court. The master appointed by the court reported that the land could not be divided, valued it and received *Page 129 bids for the property from each party. Defendant's bid being the

326 Mass. 54 (1950) 92 N.E.2d 875 F. ROLAND McDERMOTT, executor, & another vs. ETHEL WING DODD & others. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk. April 3, 1950. June 2, 1950. Present: QUA, C.J., LUMMUS, WILKINS, WILLIAMS, & COUNIHAN, JJ. *55 J.J. Gartland, (J.J. Moran<

The plaintiff in this action was the holder of a mortgage on a growing crop of oats which was the property of the mortgagor, one Sutton. While the latter was engaged in threshing the oats, on his own land, it was agreed between him and plaintiff that he, Sutton, would convey the threshed grain to a certain warehouse and would there store it in plaintiff's name. Sutton hauled the grain to the warehouse, but stored it in his own name, that is, he took warehouse receipts showing a storage by him

857 F.2d 995 12 Fed.R.Serv.3d 156 W.O. HENRY, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.INDEPENDENT AMERICAN SAVINGS ASSOCIATION; IndependentAmerican Savings Association, FSLA; andIndependent American Real Estate, Inc.,Defendants- Appellees.SUNBELT SERVICE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.INDEPENDENT AMERICAN SAVINGS ASSOCIATION and IndependentAmerican Savings Association, FSLA, Defendants-Appellees.

• MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I have granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Ambac Assurance Corporation (“Ambac”) on its breach-of-con*215tract counterclaim against plaintiff NPS LLC (“NPS”). See NPS LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corp., 706 F.Supp.2d 162 (D.Mass.2010). The issues remaining befor

724 F.Supp.2d 230 (2010) INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiff v. ENVIROTRON, LTD., d/b/a Chainstar USA, et al., Defendants. C.A. No. 09-CV-30025-MAP. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. July 7, 2010. *232 Adam J. Chandler, Richard L. Levine, William C. Saturley, Nelson, Kinder, Mosseau & Saturle

412 B.R. 64 (2009) In re LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS LTD., et al., Reorganized Debtors. Tahoe DBS, LLC, Appellant, v. Loral Space & Communications Ltd., et al., Appellees. No. 08 CV 10935(JSR). United States District Court, S.D. New York. July 28, 2009. *65 Thomas O. Bean, McDermott Will & Emery, LLP, Boston, MA,

*148MEMORANDUM & ORDER GORTON, District Judge. In three related cases Bristol, Norfolk and Plymouth Counties in Massachusetts (collectively “plaintiffs”) bring suit against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) and a collection of banks and mortgage agencies (collectively “defendants”) asserting a claim of unjust enrichment.

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROGER W. TITUS, District Judge. Three scientists walk into a lab. They emerge with an important scientific discovery but, as is frequently the case, a contentious patent dispute later arises. After nearly a decade of litigation that has spanned two federal judges, and produced enough pages of memoranda to clear a forest, Plaintiffs still have not officially unlocked the doors

706 F.Supp.2d 162 (2010) NPS LLC, Plaintiff, v. AMBAC ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant. Civil Action No. 08-11281-DPW. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. February 25, 2010. *165 Daniel L. Goldberg, Charles L. Solomont, Samuel R. Rowley, Bingham McCutchen LLP, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff. Carrie A. Syme, David W.

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12422 CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON & others1 vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL & others.2 Suffolk.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge: Fourteen Illinois municipalities, on behalf of a putative class of 154 municipalities, have sued a number of online travel companies for unpaid taxes. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to remit taxes owed under their municipal hotel tax ordinances. Defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of the Cl

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge: Fourteen Illinois municipalities, on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated municipalities, sued a number of online travel companies alleging that they failed to remit taxes owed under plaintiffs’ municipal hotel tax ordinances. Defendants removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)