Cases

414 B.R. 640 (2009) In re Peter R. FADER dba Urchin Capital Partners, dba Urchin Partners, LLC, Debtor. Sara L. Kistler, Acting United States Trustee for Region 17, Plaintiff, v. Peter R. Fader, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 08-30119DM. Adversary No. 08-3080DM. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California. July 3, 2009. *642 P

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT FOUNDATION FLOORING, LLC, Appellant, v. JAMES REICHARD and FADER REICHARD, Appellees. No. 4D20-1154 [March 17, 2021] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1004 Doc: 46 Filed: 03/24/2026 Pg: 1 of 33 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1004 LATASHA ROUSE; EXABIA ROUSE; DANIEL RILEY; JESSICA RILEY; OSCAR DAVINES; SHERRYL DAVINES, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. MATTHEW F

Lauriat, Peter M., J. This case arises out of incidents of alleged workplace sexual harassment. The plaintiff, Stacy Fader (“Fader”) filed a six-count complaint that the defendants Great Harbor Yacht Club, *369Inc. (“the Yacht Club”) and Stephen Creese (“Creese”) (collectively, “the defendants”) now move to dismiss. The defendants assert in their first motion that Counts

Panel: Graeff, Fader, James R. Eyler (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. Fader, J. *463 A Montgomery County jury convicted the appellant, Jason Nathaniel Carter, of possession of crack cocaine and possession of 50 grams or more of crack cocaine,

Kobina Ebo Abruquah v. State of Maryland, No. 10, September Term, 2022. Opinion by Fader, C.J. EVIDENCE – EXPERT EVIDENCE Firearms identification examiner testifying as an expert witness should not have been permitted to offer an unqualified opinion that crime scene bullets and a bullet fragment were fired from the petitioner’s gun. The reports, studies, and testimony presented to the circuit court demonstrate that the firearms identification methodology employed by the examiner in this case c

Michael E. Zimmerman ("appellant"), in his capacity as executor of the estate of Patricia L. Zimmerman, deceased, appeals from the entry by the trial court of summary judgment in favor of St. Peter's Catholic Church ("appellee") entered on October 16, 1992. The facts of the case and the reasoning of the trial court in entering summary judgment in favor of appellee are both succinctly and sufficiently set forth in the *Page 754 decision of the Honor

Circuit Court for Wicomico County Case No. C-22-CR-21-000030 Argued: March 2, 2023 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND No. 24 September Term, 2022 ______________________________________

Kobina Ebo Abruquah v. State of Maryland, No. 10, September Term, 2022. Opinion by Fader, C.J. EVIDENCE – EXPERT EVIDENCE Firearms identification examiner testifying as an expert witness should not have been permitted to offer an unqualified opinion that crime scene bullets and a bullet fragment were fired from the petitioner’s gun. The reports, studies, and testimony presented to the circuit court demonstrate that the firearms identification methodology employed by the examiner in this case c

Scarbrough v. Transplant Resource Center of Maryland, No. 815, September Term, 2018. Opinion by Fader, C.J. MARYLAND REVISED UNIFORM ANATOMICAL GIFT ACT AND HEALTH- GENERAL ARTICLE SECTION 19-310 – GOOD FAITH IMMUNITY – ORGAN PROCUREMENT ORGANIZATIONS The Maryland Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act and § 19-310 of the Health-General Article confer immunity on organ procurement organizations for good faith actions taken to recover a donated organ for transplant, including packaging, preserving

Gary Antoine v. State of Maryland, et al., No. 2880, September Term, 2018. Opinion by Fader, C.J. CRIMINAL LAW — APPEALS — VICTIMS’ RIGHTS A crime victim may appeal to the Court of Special Appeals from a final order that denies or fails to consider a right secured to the victim by §§ 4-202, 11-102, 11-103(e)(4), 11-104, 11-302, 11-402, 11-403, or 11-603 of the Criminal Procedure Article; § 3-8A-06, § 3-8A-13, or § 3-8A-19 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article; or § 6-112 of the Correc

Laurent v Town of Oyster Bay (2018 NY Slip Op 05028) Laurent v Town of Oyster Bay 2018 NY Slip Op 05028 Decided on July 5, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau purs

246 F.Supp.2d 59 (2003) Elouise Pepion COBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gale A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 96-1285 RCL. United States District Court, District of Columbia. March 3, 2003. *60 J. Christopher Kohn, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Commercial Litigation Branch, Washington, DC, Brian L. Ferr

MEMORANDUM and ORDER LAMBERTH, District Judge. On November 14, 2001, the Special Master issued the Report and Recommendation of the Special Master Regarding the Security of Trust Data at the Department of the Interior (“Special Master Report”). On November 26, 2001, the Department of the Interior filed its response to the Special Master report arguing, inter alia, that the “clearly err

[Cite as Goddard v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 2022-Ohio-2679.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA ANGELA GODDARD, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 111049 v. : G

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LAMBERTH, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ request for sanctions [541][542] against defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4). Upon consideration of the parties’ memoranda, the applicable law, and the entire record herein, and for the reasons set out more fully in the Special Master’s Opinion of July 27, 2001[772], the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION LAMBERTH, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ consolidated motion (1) for an order pursuant to Rule 53(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopting Special Master Alan Balaran’s May 11, 1999 opinion and holding that the deliberative process privilege and work product doctrine will not shield from disclosure material related to the administ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LAMBERTH, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ consolidated motion to compel deposition testimony of Donna Erwin [1698-1] and for sanctions under Rule 37(a)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [1698-2], which was filed on January 2, 2003. Upon consideration of plaintiffs’ motions, defendants’ opposition thereto,1

226 F.Supp.2d 163 (2002) Elouise Pepion COBELL, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. Gale A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et. al., Defendants. No. Civ.A. 96-1285(RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. September 17, 2002. *164 Keith M. Harper, Lorna K. Babby, Native American Rights Fund, Dennis Marc

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LAMBERTH, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction [1534-2], which was filed on September 20, 2002, and other related motions. During oral argument, this Court directed both parties to prepare supplemental briefs on the issues raised by plaintiffs’ motion. Those briefs have been filed with the Court. In their supplem