Cases

Appeal Dismissed.

Quashed 2014-7108 (Cumberland)

OPINION BY STABILE, J.: Appellant/plaintiff Lisa M. Morgan, Trustee, on behalf of the Marital Trust of Robert M. Mumma, appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (trial court), which granted summary judgment in favor of Appel-lee/defendant McClure Company, T/A McClure Mechanical Services (McClure). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this matter to the trial court for furt

On Motion for Rehearing WARNER, J. We deny the motion for rehearing, withdraw our previously issued opinion and substitute the following in its place. When this court last considered this case in Mumma v. Mumma, 780 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), we reviewed the trial court’s order on final accounting of the dissolution of a family corporation. We found no error in the

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED. Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED. Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED. Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.

ORDER PER CURIAM: AND NOW, this 23rd day of November, 2005, the order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED. Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

OPINION BY JOHNSON, J.: ¶ 1 Robert M. Mumma, II, (Mumma) appeals from the trial court’s October 9, 2006 order denying his petition to strike and/or open the judgments entered as a result of his failure to file a timely certificate of merit in support of his claims of professional negligence. See Pa.R.C.P. 1042.1-1042.8. Mumma also appeals from the trial court’s November 8, 2006 order granting prelim

ORDER PER CURIAM: AND NOW, this 23rd day of November, 2005, the order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED. Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, : No. 479 MAL 2016 : Petitioner : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from : the Order of the Superior Court v. :

734 So.2d 571 (1999) Barbara McK. MUMMA and Lisa Mumma Morgan, as Co-Executrixes of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Robert MUMMA, II, and Hi-Spec, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Nos. 98-2419, 98-2452. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. June 9, 1999. Rehearing Denied July 9, 1999.

780 So.2d 1001 (2001) Robert MUMMA, II, and High Spec, Inc., Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Barbara McK. MUMMA and Lisa Mumma Morgan, as Co-Executrixes of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, and High-Spec, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees/Cross-Appellants. No. 4D00-1216. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. March 28, 2001.

CONCURRING OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.: I join the Majority opinion. I agree with the Majority’s conclusion that the trial court properly denied Mumma II’s Motion for Disqualification and Removal of the executrix. I also agree that, pursuant to Matter of Estate of Velott, 365 Pa.Super. 313, 529 A.2d 525, 527 (1987), this Court is constrained to consider this order a collateral order subject to immed

OPINION BY JENKINS, J.: Robert Mumma, Sr., a successful businessman, died in 1986, leaving a widow, Barbara McK. Mumma (“Widow”), and four children, Barbara, Robert II, Linda and Lisa. Between 1986 and 2010, Widow and Lisa served as co-executrices of Robert Sr.’s estate (“the Estate”) and co-trustees of two trusts created by his will (the “Marital, Trust”

247 F.Supp. 252 (1965) Jay G. MUMMA v. READING COMPANY. Civ. A. No. 29681. United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania. November 9, 1965. *253 Meyer, Lasch, Hankin & Poul, by Joseph Smukler, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff. Frederick H. Knight, 3rd, Philadelphia, Pa., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa.

An attachment of property on mesne process is a mode of obtaining security for the satisfaction of any judgment which the plaintiff may finally recover. In the case at bar the plaintiff can never recover judgment on his *Page 153 demand. His suit is in personam, and the defendant was an artificial person, whose existence has been terminated by authority of the same government from which it was originally derived. An attachment in a suit against a

[Cite as State v. Sawitke, 2025-Ohio-1089.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Appellee : C.A. No. 30179 : v.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 136PA22 Filed 1 September 2023 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WENDY DAWN LAMB HICKS On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 283 N.C. App. 74 (2022), reversing a judgment entered on 12 December 2019 by Judge V. Bradford Long in Superior Court, Randolph County, and remanding for a new trial

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 136PA22 Filed 1 September 2023 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WENDY DAWN LAMB HICKS On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 283 N.C. App. 74 (2022), reversing a judgment entered on 12 December 2019 by Judge V. Bradford Long in Superior Court, Randolph County, and remanding for a new trial