Cases

BEASON v. I. E. MILLER SERVICES, INC. Skip to Main Content Accessibility Statement Help Contact Us

OSCN Found Document:BEASON v. I. E. MILLER SERVICES, INC. BEASON v. I. E. MILLER SERVICES, INC.2019 OK 28Case Number: 114301Decided: 04/23/2019THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Cite as: 2019 OK 28, __ P.3d __ NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO RE

655 F.Supp.2d 177 (2009) BRAVADO INTERNATIONAL GROUP MERCHANDISING SERVICES, INC., et al., Plaintiff, v. NINNA, INC., et al., Defendant. No. CV-08-3123 (CPS). United States District Court, E.D. New York. August 27, 2009. *182 Kenneth Alan Feinswog, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff. Jacob Michailov, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.

427 F.Supp.2d 1032 (2006) SUNLIGHT SAUNAS, INC., Plaintiff, v. SUNDANCE SAUNA, INC. and Brighton Sauna, Inc. Defendants. No. CIV.A. 04-2597-KHV. United States District Court, D. Kansas. April 17, 2006. *1033 *1034 *1035 *1036</

216 F.Supp.2d 198 (2002) UNITED FEATURE SYNDICATE, INC., and Newspaper Enterprise Association, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. MILLER FEATURES SYNDICATE, INC., Richard Vroom, and Agnes Vroom, Defendants. No. 01 CIV. 2491(GEL). United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 11, 2002. *199 *200

696 F.Supp.2d 368 (2010) FENDI ADELE S.R.L., Fendi S.R.L., and Fendi North America, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. FILENE'S BASEMENT, INC. and Retail Ventures, Inc., Defendants. No. 06 Civ. 244(RMB)(MHD). United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 11, 2010. *370 Richard L. Mattiaccio, Victor Genecin, Steven Skulnik, Squire, Sanders

340 Mich. 173 (1954) 65 N.W.2d 303 FURNITURE CAPITAL TRUCK LINES, INC., v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. Docket No. 13, Calendar No. 45,906. Supreme Court of Michigan. Decided July 6, 1954. *175 Hayes, McEvoy & Carney (James McEvoy, Jr., and Neil B. Hayes, of counsel), for plaintiffs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 19–0094 Filed May 1, 2020 GARY DICKEY JR., Appellant, vs. IOWA ETHICS AND CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE BOARD, Appellee. On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie K. Vaudt, Judge. A citizen appeals the dismissal of his petition for judicial review of a ruling by the Iowa Ethics and Campaign D

LUCERO, Circuit Judge, dissenting, joined by HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge. This is a pivotal case which, unless reversed or modified, will have long-term deleterious effects on the use and management of federal public lands. It also expands the doctrine of prudential standing by arrogating to appellate courts unbounded and unprecedented authority to reverse trial court decisions without ad

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket. Nos. 49615, 49817, 49899 PLANNED PARENTHOOD GREAT ) NORTHWEST, HAWAII, ALASKA, ) INDIANA, KENTUCKY, on behalf of itself, its ) staff, physicians and patients, and Caitlin ) Gustafson, M.D., on behalf of herself and her ) patients, ) ) Petitioners,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 114,153 HODES & NAUSER, MDS, P.A.; HERBERT C. HODES, M.D.; and TRACI LYNN NAUSER, M.D., Appellees, v. DEREK SCHMIDT, in His Official Capacity

632 F.3d 1162 (2011) THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. KANE COUNTY, UTAH; Daniel W. Hulet, Mark W. Habbeshaw, and Duke Cox, in their official capacities as Kane County Commissioners, Defendants-Appellants. Utah Association of Counties; National Trust for Historic Preservation; Patrick A. Shea, Michael P. Dombeck, James Baca, Former Directors of the Bureau of Land Management; Natural Resources

Peters, C. J. These appeals are a sequel to Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 648-49, 376 A.2d 359 (1977) (Horton I), in which this court held unconstitutional the then existing statutory financing system for free public elementary and secondary school education in this state. Noting the difficulties of formulating appropriate orders of relief, we agreed in Horton I with the trial court’s decisio

Arthur H. Healey, J. The defendant, Kendall Smith, a probationer, has appealed from the imposition by the trial court, Barall, J., of a special condition of probation one year after his sentencing originally placing him on probation. He maintains that, in doing so, the trial court violated General Statutes § 53a-301 and his probationer’s right to be free from illegal searches and seizures. We

262 Md. 646 (1971) 278 A.2d 557 O'DOHERTY ET UX., ETC. v. CATONSVILLE PLUMBING AND HEATING COMPANY, INC. [No. 468, September Term, 1970.] Court of Appeals of Maryland. Decided June 29, 1971. The cause was argued before HAMMOND, C.J., and McWILLIAMS, FINAN, SINGLEY and SMITH, JJ. Herbert Burgunder, Jr., with whom was F. Gray G

Pierce, J. This is an action of contract brought by the seller to recover from the buyer the price of goods ordered from samples shown at the buyer’s store. The evidence warranted the finding of the presiding judge, “that the defendant directed the plaintiff to ship the merchandise in suit by Mahoney’s Express, and that the defendant was to pay the express charges for transportation.” The judge was not bound to

Qua, J. The plaintiff was injured in this Commonwealth by reason of the operation by one Hodgman of an automobile owned by the defendant. The defendant was a dealer in motor vehicles in Hartford, Connecticut. The plaintiff’s case now rests upon his contention that the defendant’s automobile was a “trespasser” upon the highway and a nuisance. The evidence, briefly summarized, was this: Hodgman was the defendan

Ronan, J. This is an action of contract by the adminis-tratrix de bonis non of the estate of Ansley R. Strachan to recover the amount of a policy issued to the intestate and payable “to Lillian Strachan, beneficiary, wife of the insured,” and to his personal representatives if no beneficiary was living at the time of his death. The judge found for the defendant, but this finding was vacated by the Appellate Divi

Pierce, J. These two suits in equity depend on the same statement of facts, with minor differences, and raise the same questions of law. The plaintiff in each suit seeks specific performance by the defendant, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, and having a principal-place of business in Boston in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, of a written extra compensation and stock

14 N.J. Super. 470 (1951) 82 A.2d 485 BROOKLYN TRUST COMPANY, A BANKING CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COMMITTEE OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF SALVATORE ZINGALE, AN INCOMPETENT PERSON, AND MARY ZINGALE, PLAINTIFFS, v. RUBIN PODVIN, MORRIS J. SASLAFF COMPANY, MORRIS J. SASLAFF, WILLIAM SASLAFF, CAROLINE FISCHLER, BENJAMIN A. RIMM, THE BOARDWALK NATIONAL BANK OF ATLANTIC CITY, A NATIONAL BANKI