Cases

MARC E. JOHNSON, Judge. ^Defendant appeals his convictions and sentences for theft and possession of stolen property on the basis of the sufficiency of the evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm his conviction and enhanced sentence for possession of stolen property and vacate his conviction and sentence for theft. Defendant, John Warrick, was charged in a bill of information on September 2, 2014

KAUGER, J.; T1 The dispositive issue presented 1 is whether the $25.00 monthly maintenance fee limitation set forth in 47 O.S8. Supp. 2013 § 6-212.3 2 for an interlock device installed in vehicles, precludes the collection of lease/rental fees, taxes, and insurance/

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A. KATHLEEN TOMLINSON, United States Magistrate Judge: I. Preliminary Statement Plaintiff Gabrielle Douyon (“Plaintiff’) commenced this action against Defendants N.Y. Medical Health Care, P.C., Seymour Schneider, Koroush Golyan, Nathan Khai-mov, and Faraidoon Daniel Golyan for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and various New York S

OSCN Found Document:HEATH v. GUARDIAN INTERLOCK NETWORK, INC. OSCN navigation Home Courts Court Dockets

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Nos. 24-3144, 24-3145 IN RE: CITY OF CHESTER, PENNSYLVANIA, Debtor CITY OF CHESTER v. PHCC LLC d/b/a Preston Hollow Community Capital; PRESTON HOLLOW CAPITAL, LLC; COUNTY OF DELAWARE; CHESTER DOWNS AND MARINA, LLC d/b/a Harrahs Philadelphia Casino and Racetra

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc IN THE INTEREST OF D.E.G., ) Opinion issued June 16, 2020 ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. SC97869 ) JUVENILE OFFICER OF

RUIZ, Senior Judge: Petitioner D.C. Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, Inc. (Appleseed) seeks our review of the decision and order of the respondent, District of Columbia Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking (Department or DISB), determining that the 2008 surplus of intervenor, Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc. (GHMSI), was not “excessive” for purposes of the Hospital and Medical Services Corpor

156 F.3d 1030 29 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,032, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,331,98 CJ C.A.R. 5094 James E. AKIN; Richard G. Arellano; Charles L. Baldwin;Annie M. Barnes; Terry D. Blain; Marcia Bannock; DeltonE. Brown; Timothy L. Caraway; Thomas W. Clark; RichardCotey; Connie Cottrell; Ronnie D. Cottrell; Steven L.Coy; Hugh Crow; Nathan D'Amico; Donna M. Davis; Louis R.Dickinson; Ollie Dilli

FERREN, Senior Judge: Myrone Williams appeals his convictions of threatening to injure a person1 (his wife) in early March 2008; second-degree murder (of his wife) while armed2 a few weeks later; and related weapons offenses: possession of a firearm during a crime of violence (PFCV),3 carrying a pistol without a license outside the home (CPW

USCA11 Case: 23-10343 Document: 100-1 Date Filed: 07/11/2025 Page: 1 of 114 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-10343 ____________________ CLARISSA GILMORE,

Donald S. Taylor, J. In this action for slander the plaintiff moves to strike the five separate defenses contained in the defendant’s answer on the ground that they are legally insufficient. The defendant in turn challenges the legal sufficiency of the amended complaint. (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 109, subd. 6.) The first separate defense based on the qualified privilege of fair comment on a matter of public i

Vast Voorhis, J. (concurring in part). The present appeal concerns only questions of pleading. The merits of the controversy are not before us for decision. The error in the order appealed from, in my judgment, consists in striking out the defenses of fair comment and of qualified privilege. Unless these defenses are allowed to stand, it is presumed that the words were false, uttered in malice and that plaintiff has been damag

BACKGROUND GREENE, District J. On November 13, 1992, plaintiffs filed this toxic tort ease in state court at Beaumont, Texas. After receipt of answers to interrogatories, defendant General Electric (GE) removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The Texas district court judge upheld removal jurisdiction, de