Cases

Affirmed 2011-08715 (Bucks)

Case: 19-11253 Date Filed: 08/11/2020 Page: 1 of 37 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-11253 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 7:17-cv-00085-HL NILESH S. PATEL,

Dillard, Presiding Judge. Following a jury trial, at which he proceeded pro se , Amul Patel was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, possession of marijuana more than one ounce, and possession of cocaine. On appeal, now represented by counsel, Patel argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. For the reasons set forth

OPINION OF THE COURT Smith, J. Defendants challenge a large medical malpractice judgment against them on various grounds. We reject most of their arguments, but modify the Appellate Division’s order to require a new trial on damages for pain and suffering, because the courts below erred in holding that causation issues could not be litigated at a damages trial. I On July

652 F.3d 962 (2011) Anantkumar PATEL; Meenaben Patel, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent. No. 10-2958. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: June 16, 2011. Filed: August 31, 2011. *964 Judy Resnick, argued, Far Rockaway, NY, Marci

761 F.Supp.2d 23 (2011) Rajesh SRIRAMAN, Plaintiff, v. Shashikant PATEL, Defendant. No. 09 Civ. 5531(BMC). United States District Court, E.D. New York. March 23, 2011. *24 Gail Miriam Eckstein, Reed Smith LLP, for Plaintiff. David Clifford Burger, Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese & Gluck, P.C., for Defendant.

Miller, Judge. Rajesh C. Patel (R. C. Patel) and Mukesh C. Patel (M. C. Patel) appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Ameris Bank on their guaranties of a promissory note signed by Vipulkumar *228M. Patel (V. M. Patel).1 Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fa

MEMORANDUM** Ramzan R. Thobani appeals pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order, which held that his $54,638.34 claim against Chapter 7 debtor Rasool Patel was not a “community” claim under 11 U.S.C. § 101(7) or for the purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 726(c). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo decisions of the BAP, and we revie

761 F.Supp.2d 7 (2011) Rajesh SRIRAMAN, Plaintiff, v. Shashikant PATEL, Defendant. No. 09 Civ. 5531 (BMC). United States District Court, E.D. New York. January 24, 2011. *9 Saritha Chandrupatla Reddy, Gail Miriam Eckstein, Steven Cooper, Reed Smith LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff. David Clifford Burger, Robinson Brog Lein

BARNES, J., dissenting: ¶ 25. I respectfully dissent. The trial court properly found Defendants’ filing suit in Rankin Count constituted an act inconsistent with arbitration. Therefore, I would affirm the trial court’s ' denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. ¶ 26, This case involves the unique situation where Defendants requested arbitration on repayment of the

ORDER CERTIFYING RULE 23(b)(3) CLASS [ECF Nos. 56^4, 60] LAUREL BEELER, United States Magistrate Judge INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Amit Patel applied to rent an apartment. Trans Union Rental Screening *295Solutions, Inc. performed a background report, which reported (inaccurately) that Mr. Patel was on a terrorist

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered October 9, 2008. The judgment revoked defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of incarceration and probation with electronic monitoring. It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by vacating that part revoking the sentence of probation and imposing sentence

526 F.3d 800 (2008) Tarun Hasmukhlai PATEL, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. No. 06-61056. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. April 29, 2008. *801 Paul A. Esquivel, San Antonio, TX, for Patel. Holly Michele Smith, Thomas Ward Hussey, Dir., Linda Susan Wendtland, Claire L. Wo

560 N.E.2d 1260 (1990) Jeffrey C. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Narotam J. PATEL, Defendant-Appellee. No. 44A03-9001-CV-10. Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District. October 17, 1990. Herbert E. Boase, LaGrange, for plaintiff-appellant. Richard K. Muntz, Muntz & Vanderbeck, P.C., LaGrange, for defendant-appellee. GARRARD, Judge. The Smal

OPINION N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge: Police officers do not conduct a search within the meaning of the Fourth Arrfendment merely by entering an area of private, commercial property that is open to the public. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Mahesh Patel’s complaint alleging that City of Montclair police officers violated his Fourth

MEMORANDUM** Ramzan R. Thobani appeals pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order, which held .that his $54,638.34 claim against Chapter 7 debtor Rasool Patel was not a “community” claim under 11 U.S.C. § 101(7) or for the purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 726(c). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo decisions of the BAP, and we re

MEMORANDUM** Ramzan R. Thobani appeals pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order, which held .that his $54,638.34 claim against Chapter 7 debtor Rasool Patel was not a “community” claim under 11 U.S.C. § 101(7) or for the purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 726(c). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo decisions of the BAP, and we re

225 S.W.3d 1 (2005) Melton HARRELL and Deborah Harrell, Appellants, v. Natverlal "Natu" PATEL, Appellee. No. 08-04-00060-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso. August 4, 2005. Rehearing Overruled September 21, 2005. *2 E.P. Bud Kirk, El Paso, for Appellants. Mark N. Osborn, Kemp, Smith, El Paso, for Appel

603 S.E.2d 237 (2004) 278 Ga. 403 PATEL v. The STATE. No. S04A0829 Supreme Court of Georgia. September 27, 2004 *239 Laurence Harry Margolis, Smith, White, Sharma & Halpern, Atlanta, for Appellant. John Thomas Morgan III, Barbara Blaine Conroy, Deputy Asst. Dist. Atty., Hon. Thurbert E. Baker, A

TALLMAN, Circuit Judge, with whom Circuit Judges O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN join, dissenting: The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated----” U.S. Const., amend. IV. The Amendment has always prohibited specific