Cases

OPINION MAASSEN, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION An elderly woman hired an in-home care company to assist her with day-today living. The company provided an in-home assistant who was later discovered to have stolen the woman’s jewelry and prescription medication. The woman sued both the company and the assistant for conversion and assault

HARRIS, J. This is a case of good intentions but bad location; a ease of merit wrongly pursued. In 1998, the Haines were divorced. As a part of the divorce agreement approved by the court, Mr. Haines agreed to pay rehabilitative alimony to Mrs. Haines for sixty months. Mr. Haines further agreed that if he had not met his payment obligation prior to his death, any balance would be a claim against his estate.

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a case involving alleged breaches of warranty and failures to disclose defects in a home sale case. Because the defendant Haines repeatedly failed or refused to appear for his properly noticed deposition he has prevented plaintiff from obtaining discovery concerning her lawsuit against him and the other defendants. Thus the case is not yet fully at

PER CURIAM. We treat this appeal as a Petition for Writ of Certiorari and deny the petition. The matter is moot and no purpose could be served by this Court ruling on the issues presented in this appeal. PETITION DENIED. PLEUS, C.J., SHARP, W. and TORPY, JJ., concur.

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘o

601 F.Supp.2d 123 (2009) Andrea PETERSON, Plaintiff, v. ARCHSTONE, Defendant. Civil Action No. 08-1326 (RWR). United States District Court, District of Columbia. February 27, 2009. *124 Andrea Peterson, Charlotte, NC, pro se. Nancy North Delogu, Sarah Elizabeth Henninger, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Washington, DC, for Defend

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) ANDREA PETERSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1326 (RWR) ) ARCHSTONE,

233 B.R. 480 (1999) In re Pauline HAINES, d/b/a Polly's Place, Debtor. Bankruptcy No. 98-11797-13. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Montana, Butte Division. May 10, 1999. *481 James A. Patten, West, Patten, Bekkedahl & Green, P.L.L.C., Billings, MT, James E. Torske, Hardin, MT, for debtor. John Fredericks, III, Michael L. Ch

ORDER STEPHANIE K. SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. Andre L. Peterson, proceeding pro se, applies for a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court’s denial of his motion to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition out of time. Mr. Peterson also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis Cifp) on appeal. We exercise jurisdiction o

WIEAND, Judge, concurring: I agree with and join Judge Wickersham’s disposition of the issues in this case. If I understand correctly the opinion of the learned trial judge, he would, given discretion, award interest at market rates on the sum of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars which was wrongfully obtained and wrongfully withheld by counsel from his client. The trial judge concluded, however, that he lac

Wennerstrum, J. The plaintiffs are resident taxpayers of the Carter Lake School District, intervenor in the pending proceeding. They brought an action against the Board of Supervisors of Pottawattamie County and the county treasurer thereof seeking a writ of mandamus to order the board to direct the treasurer to refund taxes paid under protest and which they claim were illegally collected. They also sought to enjoin the collecti

HALL, Judge. The appellant, Henry Peterson, challenges his conviction for possession of cocaine. Though we find no merit in three of the issues he raises on this appeal, we find his motion to suppress the evidence against him should have been granted. In April 1989, Peterson was arrested for public consumption of alcohol in violation of a Haines City ordinance. A search incident to that arrest revealed Peter

OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM C. CONNER, District Judge: BACKGROUND Plaintiff Fred Peterson (“Peterson”), an inmate at Eastern New York Correctional Facility, formerly an inmate at Green Haven Correctional Facility (“Green Haven”), brings this action, pro se, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Charles J. Scully, Superintendent of Green Haven, Thomas A. Coughlin III, Commissioner of Correcti

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge: Appellants appeal their convictions for possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) in United States customs waters with the intent to distribute and for conspiracy to destroy goods to prevent seizure, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 955a(c), and 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2232. Following denial of their motions to suppress evidence, appellants

This action was one brought by plaintiff, an attorney and counselor at law, to recover the sum of $650, alleged to be the reasonable value of certain legal services rendered by him to defendant. Judgment went in his favor for the sum of $250. Motion for a new trial was made and denied, and defendant appeals. It is claimed that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to warrant the finding of the trial court that plaintiff rendered and performed for and on behalf of the defendan

The appeal is based upon claimed errors in denying the motion to set aside the verdict, in finding certain facts without evidence, and in failing to charge as requested. The plaintiff claimed that shortly after five o'clock on the morning of New Year's Day 1932, his decedent, on his way to work in New Britain, was walking westerly on the southerly shoulder of Robbins Avenue when he was overtaken and struck by an automobile driven by the defendant Meehan, Jr., and owned by the defendant

Plaintiff brought this action to recover on a memorandum agreement for a commission for securing a tenant for property owned by defendants. Defendants answered, denying that the memorandum was executed for value received, and as special defenses alleged (1) that the memorandum had been canceled by mutual consent, (2) that at the time of its delivery it was understood that should negotiations then being carried on by plaintiff fail, there should be no liability on the part of the defendants an

The defendant claims that the court erred in its refusal to make certain corrections in the finding, and in its rulings as to the negligence of the defendant and the lack of contributory negligence of the plaintiff. There was a ruling admitting evidence and an exception thereto discussed by the defendant. This ruling, which admitted evidence tending to prove that plaintiff's wife, because of his injuries, had to go to work and so continued until he had recovered and still is working in order

47 Wis.2d 442 (1970) 177 N.W.2d 328 HAINES (Sara Sue), Appellant, v. MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent: HAINES (Gary) and another, Defendants. No. 267. Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Argued April 29, 1970. Decided June 5, 1970. *445 For the appellant there was a brief by Johns,

The intent and effect of the second paragraph of the will are unmistakable. The right therein given to William Scanlin and his family to make their home on the premises in which the testator's wife, Martha, was given a life estate contemplated, as to his "family," a joint occupancy, with him, and a continuance of his life use during such occupancy of the premises. The succeeding sentence has no reference to that occupancy, but deals solely with the conditions under which a bequest to the test