Cases

382 B.R. 550 (2008) In re RHODES, INC., et al., Debtors. Joel H. Dugan, as Liquidating Agent, Movant, v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Respondent. Nos. 04-78434 to 04-78436. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. January 25, 2008. *551 *552

428 N.W.2d 504 (1988) 229 Neb. 672 Patrick R. DUGAN, Appellee, v. Holly JENSEN, Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles, State of Nebraska, Appellant. No. 86-931. Supreme Court of Nebraska. September 2, 1988. Robert M. Spire, Atty. Gen., Lincoln, and Michele M. Frost, Omaha, for appellant. James Walter Crampton, Omaha, for appelle

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS DAVID M. LAWSON, District Judge. Walter Toebe Construction Company, an unpaid contractor on a government construction project, has filed suit against the Guarantee Company of North America USA (GCNA) to collect what is owing to it for Toebe’s part of the project. Toebe has alleged several theories of recovery, incl

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 06/27/2025 09:09 AM CDT - 287 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 319 Nebraska Reports J.R.M.B. V. ALEGENT CREIGHTON HEALTH Cite as 319 Neb. 287 J.R.M.B., a minor child, by

TABOR, J. A child challenges the performance of his counsel during juvenile delinquency proceedings. Specifically, the child contends when the juvenile court granted his application for a consent decree under Iowa Code section 232.46 (2013) on a pending delinquency petition for intimidation with a dangerous weapon by threats and suspended the proceedings, his counsel was ineffec

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BLACKBURN, District Judge. This case came before me for trial to the court from July 23 through August 2, 2012, on the claims of plaintiff, United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), for misrepresentation pursuant to section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 19331 and SEC Rule 10b-5(b)2 promulgated under

MIRARCHI, Jr., Senior Judge. Peter D. Hunt, E. Michael Dugan, Nancy R. Johnson, Marilyn J. Labosky, Michelle M. Logan, Connie R. Rusin and Rhonda J. Seamon (collectively, Petitioners) are past or present employees of the Bradford/Sullivan Counties Drug and Alcohol Program. Gary Goeekel, Tina Pickett and Janet Lewis are *747Bradford County Commissioners and are members

719 N.W.2d 297 (2006) 272 Neb. 169 NATIONAL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, appellant v. CONSTRUCTORS BONDING COMPANY, doing business as Constructors Bonding and Insurance, appellee. No. S-05-251. Supreme Court of Nebraska. August 11, 2006. *299 William M. Lamson, Jr., and Michele E. Young, Omaha, of Lamson, D

188 P.3d 1253 (2008) 2008-NMCA-095 Dana HOWSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROSWELL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT and Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Defendants-Appellees. No. 27,171. Court of Appeals of New Mexico. April 21, 2008. Certiorari Denied, No. 31,111, June 12, 2008. *1255 Ma

504 F.Supp.2d 740 (2007) COMCAST OF ILLINOIS X, Plaintiff, v. MULTI-VISION ELECTRONICS, INC., and Ronald J. Abboud, Defendants. No. 8:03CV311. United States District Court, D. Nebraska. May 9, 2007. *741 *742 Jeffrey R. Platt, Maureen Ann Beck, Coman, Anderson Law Firm, Lisle, IL, Mark E. Novo

276 F.Supp.2d 989 (2003) David D. STARK, M. D., Plaintiff, v. SOTERIA IMAGING SERVICES, INC., and Nebraska Health Imaging, Defendants. No. 8:02CV560. United States District Court, D. Nebraska. August 12, 2003. *990 *991 Leo A. Knowles, James G. Powers, McGrath, North Law Firm, Omaha, NE, Adam

336 F.Supp.2d 957 (2004) COMCAST OF ILLINOIS X, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, v. PLATINUM ELECTRONICS, INC. a Nebraska Corporation; Steven M. Abboud, individually; Patrick B. Finn, individually; and Manual J. Varra, individually, Defendants. No. 8:03 CV 195. United States District Court, D. Nebraska. September 23, 2004.

109 N.J. 396 (1988) 537 A.2d 1227 IN THE MATTER OF BABY M, A PSEUDONYM FOR AN ACTUAL PERSON. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued September 14, 1987. Decided February 3, 1988. *407 Harold J. Cassidy and Alan J. Karcher argued the cause for appellants, Mary Beth and Richard Whitehead (Cassidy, F

929 A.2d 19 (2007) 400 Md. 167 Mary CARROLL v. Phillip H. KONITS, M.D. et al. No. 117, September Term, 2006. Court of Appeals of Maryland. July 27, 2007. *21 Darren Margolis (Bierer, Margolis & Curtis, P.A. of Baltimore), on brief, for appellant. Michelle R. Callender (Wharton, Levin, Ehrmantrau

SEITZ, Justice: In this appeal we consider the limits of the stockholder ratification defense when directors make equity awards to themselves under the general parameters of an equity incentive plan. In the absence of stockholder approval, if a stockholder properly challenges equity incentive plan awards the directors grant to themselves, the directors

49 Cal.App.4th 1176 (1996) MICHELLE CHU et al., Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Respondents. Docket No. D025723. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One. October 1, 1996. *1179 COUNSEL David B. Dugan for Petitioners. John W. Witt, City Attorney, Anita

MEMORANDUM OPINION GEORGE J. HAZEL, United States District Judge Pulte Home Corporation and Shiloh Farm Investments, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), made a substantial investment in 541 acres of undeveloped land in Clarksburg, Maryland in hopes of developing the property. Steps taken by Montgomery County, Maryland (the “County”) and. the. Maryland-National Capital Park

The opinion of the court was delivered by KESTIN, J.A.D. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants entered after a bench trial. Plaintiff seeks to be restored to his position as municipal construction official, building sub-code official and building inspector, with back pay, retroactive benefits, damages, and attorneys fees. He has pled his claims based on State and federal statutes and pursuan

FILED Jul 26 2024, 9:57 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals

JAMES L. ROBART, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION The work of this court, and more broadly of the federal Judiciary, is to resolve disputes between parties; that is what the court endeavors to do today in ruling on the two motions before it. Plaintiffs in both cases are refugees, who find themselves in dire circumstances, their family members who yearn to be reunited with them, and hum