Cases

OPINION VIGIL, Judge. {1} Plaintiff appeals from two orders of the district court. First, the district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiffs evidence failed to satisfy the requirements of a Delgado claim. See Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino, Inc., 2001-NMSC-034, ¶ 24, 131 N.M. 272

PER CURIAM. *1100Upon consideration of the initial brief, and finding no preliminary basis for reversal has been demonstrated, the order below is summarily affirmed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). See Soro v. Soro,

PER CURIAM. *1100Upon consideration of the initial brief, and finding no preliminary basis for reversal has been demonstrated, the order below is summarily affirmed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). See Soro v. Soro,

221 F.Supp.2d 623 (2002) Richard P. MAY v. ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC. No. Civ.A. WMN-01-3243. United States District Court, D. Maryland. August 29, 2002. *624 Howard J. Needle, Baltimore, MD, for Plaintiff. Joseph E. Santucci, Jr., Robyn B. Weiss, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant. M

713 N.W.2d 910 (2006) In re the Marriage of Loydene J. MAY, petitioner, Appellant, v. Richard John MAY (deceased), by Kathryn J. MAY, Surviving Spouse of Richard John May, Respondent. No. A05-1157. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. May 16, 2006. *911 Andrew D. Hultgren, Neils, Franz & Chirhart, P.A., St. Cloud, MN, for appellant

*858Sanders, J.* ¶16 (dissenting) — We are asked whether a permanent protection order requires an unambiguous statutory finding for it to extend beyond one year. To issue a permanent protection order, RCW 26.50.060(2) requires an explicit finding that “respondent is likely to resume acts of domestic violence against the petitioner.” The

*1316 Opinion ELIA, J. This case concerns resolution No. 8132 (Resolution) adopted by respondent City Council of the City of Milpitas (City Council). The Resolution approved amendments to a site development permit, a tentative map, and a conditional use permit for the Citation Resi

McDonald, J. In the court system, a potential plaintiff has an interest in having sufficient time to investigate and assert a claim. A potential defendant has an interest in repose and finality as to whether it will be necessary to mount a defense. The public has an interest in the efficient use of public resources—what, in this cont

Mills, J. The plaintiff Michael Phelan complained against his former employer and superiors, the defendants May Department Stores Company, Michael Geraghty, and Donald Lane, alleging false imprisonment and defamation arising from their conduct *844on July 10, 1998. A jury found for the plaintiff and awarded damages of $1,500 for false imprisonment and $75,000 for defamati

PAUL E. DANIELSON, Justice. |2AppelIants Kenneth Joe May; Mary A. May; Michael Bryant; Donna Bryant; Ralph Bryant; Christi Bryant; C.M. Sneed; Carolyn Sneed; E.C. Rowlett Limited Partnership; B.J. McNair; Donna McNair; Danny Snowden; and Shelia Snowden, on behalf of themselves and all other owners of oil and gas royalty and production interests in the state of Arkansas (collectively, “the Taxpayers”),

Vacated by published opinion. Judge FLOYD wrote the opinion, in which Judge MOTZ and Judge GIBNEY joined. FLOYD, Circuit Judge: Appellant Richard Lee Adams (Adams) challenges his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Adams argues that he is actually innocent of the § 922(g) offense because he was not,

WALTER J. ROTHSCHILD, Judge. | sIn this wrongful death and survival action, plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of defendants. For the reasons stated more fully herein, we affirm the ruling of the trial court. Facts and Procedural History This litigation arises from a motor vehicle accident which occurred-on November 24, 1997 at the intersection of Evans Roa

755 F.Supp.2d 623 (2010) Diana MAY, Plaintiff, v. The BOROUGH OF PINE HILL, Fred Costantino, and John Kearney, Defendants. Civil Action No. 10-2628 (JEI/KMW). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. December 17, 2010. *625 Richard F. Klineburger, III, Haddonfield, NJ, for Plaintiff. Brown & Connery, LLP, by Christ

23 S.W.3d 558 (2000) E.N. FRADY and Marsha Frady, Appellants, v. Bart MAY d/b/a Bart May Real Estate, Appellee. No. 2-99-118-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth. June 15, 2000. Rehearing Overruled July 27, 2000. Ordered Published July 27, 2000. *560 G. Philip Robertson, Clifton, for Appella

PRESCOTT, J. The state of Connecticut appeals from the judgment of dismissal rendered by the trial court after the state entered a nolle prosequi in a criminal case charging the defendant, Richard P., with various offenses arising from his alleged physical and sexual abuse of two of his children. 1 The state c

OPINION Sherry Radack, Chief Justice Appellee, Eva S. Engelhart, has filed a motion to dismiss, or, alternatively, a mo *15 tion for rehearing, contending that, while on appeal, this case has become moot. Appellants, too, have filed a motion for rehearing. We agree that certain

Kirsch, Judge. After Harold A. Silberman (“Harold”) died in 2013, litigation ensued between his wife, Cynthia Clark-Silberman (“Cynthia”), and his two adult children from a former marriage, Richard A. Sil-berman (“Richard”) and Susan A. Wang (“Susan”), concerning Harold’s estate and his revocable trust agreement. As is relevant here, Richard and Susan filed a Petition to Set Asi

FILED October 23, 2023 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA James

PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the order requiring Rhonda Webb to submit to a psychological evaluation is quashed. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.360(a)(1) (2007) (“A party may request any other party to submit to ... examination by a qualified expert when the condition that is the subject of the requested examination is in controversy.”) (emphasis supplied). See also Olges v. D

THIRD DIVISION DILLARD, P. J., GOBEIL and HODGES, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules October 9