Cases

*851The infant plaintiff, by his father, commenced this action after he allegedly was injured by the ingestion of lead paint in an apartment located in a building “owned” by the defendant United Bank of Kuwait, PLC (hereinafter the Bank), and leased to the defendant Baitul Jannah Zame Masjid and Muslim Community Center, Inc. (hereinafter the Baitul Center) (see Roni v Rahim, 49 AD3d 851 [2

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia ATLANTA,____________________ May 21, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A20A0729. DUDAR v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. Abdur Rahim Dib Dudar owns a home in Athens, Georgia, which he planned to rent to a participant in the Department of Community Affairs’ Housing Choice Voucher Program. Based upon a dispute regarding the amount

ORDER AND REASONS SUSIE MORGAN, District Judge. Before the. Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) (together, “Defendants”).1 Plaintiff, Malik Rahim (“Plaintiff’), opposes the motion.2. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED in all

ADAMS, P. J. Respondents Abdul Rahim and Abdul Khanan brought this action to have it adjudged they were the owners of a lease on the Metropolitan Hotel in Sacramento, that appellants Ali Akbar and Khan Bahadar held the lease in trust for them, that an assignment of respondents’ interest in the lease to appellants be set aside on the ground of fraud and deceit, and that appellants be required to assign the lease to respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RICHARD W. ROBERTS, Chief Judge Guantanamo detainee Abd A1 Rahim Hussayn Muhammad A1 Nashiri submitted an amended petition 1 seeking a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the respondents’ attempts to try him by military commission would exceed the limits im

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AQUIL SUDAH, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 24-2528 (TJK) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Aquil Sudah sues twelve defendants—the District of Columbia and several of its officials and agencies—asserting an array of violations of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ADRIAN BOWRIN, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 23-2421 (BAH) v. Judge Beryl A. Howell DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., Defendant. MEMORA

OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: Abd A1 Rahim Hussein Al-Nashiri is a noncitizen “enemy combatant” undergoing proceedings before a military commission at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The charges against Al-Nashiri arose from his alleged role in three terrorist plots: the 2000 attempted bombing of the U.S.S. The Sullivan

[Cite as Fayak v. Univ. Hosps., 2020-Ohio-5512.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA AMANDA FAYAK, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 109279 v. : UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS, ET AL., : Defendants-Appellees. :

Botsford, J. In this case we consider again what impact, if any, G. L. c. 94C, § 32L (§ 32L), which decriminalizes possession of one ounce or less of marijuana, has on the provisions of G. L. c. 94C, § 32C (a) (§ 32C [a]). See Commonwealth v. Keefner, 461 Mass. 507 (2012) (Keefner). The defendant was charged with cultivation of marijuana in violation of § 32C (a) and committin

ORDER These are three consolidated appeals taken from individual judgment and commitment orders in a multiple-defendant criminal prosecution. The parties have briefed the issues through counsel and have agreed to waive oral argument. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a). In April 2000, a federal grand jury indicted fourteen individual defe

680 F.Supp.2d 7 (2009) Ahmad Mohammad Al DARBI, Petitioner, v. Barack OBAMA, et al., Respondents. Civil No. 05-2371 (RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. December 22, 2009. *10 J. Wells Dixon, Paul C. Curnin, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, Shayana Devendra Kadidal, New York, NY, for Petitioner. James

OPINION AND ORDER PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, United States District Judge Plaintiffs, an elected member of the U.K. Parliament, a parliamentary group, and an American attorney, brought this suit pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) against various government agencies, including the United States Department of Defense. Plaintiffs have requested documents related to (1) the United States’ extr

(2008) Rhonda FARRAH, Plaintiff, v. MONTEREY TRANSFER & STORAGE, INC., Defendant. No. C 07-06044 JW. United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. May 23, 2008. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE JAMES WARE, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Rhonda Farrah ("Plaintiff) brin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MALAIKA LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 22-3369 (RDM) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case involves two separate encounters that Plaintiff Malaika Lewis and her minor daughter, Pl

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2020-DP-00440-SCT WILLIE CORY GODBOLT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/28/2020 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. DAVID H. STRONG, JR. TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: ALISON R. STEINER KATHERINE ELIZABETH POOR M.A. BASS, JR. ROBERT W. BYRD RODNEY GLEN TIDWEL

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GOTTSCHALL, District Judge. Robert Matz (“Matz”), on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, sued Household International Tax Reduction Investment Plan (“Plan”) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Matz made contributions to an employee benefit pension plan which were matched by contributions from Household. These matching contributions

422 N.E.2d 745 (1981) Charles MYERS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. No. 1-1080A276. Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District. July 1, 1981. Rehearing Denied August 11, 1981. *747 Carol A. Glass, Indianapolis, for appellant-defendant. Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Janis L

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT H. JACOBVITZ, Bankruptcy Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court following a final, evidentiary hearing on the merits of the United States Trustee’s Amended Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(a) or Alternatively Convert to a Chapter 11 Proceeding (“UST’s Motion to Dismiss or Convert”— Docket No. 69) held December 5, 2012.1 Ronald

19 Cal.3d 278 (1977) 562 P.2d 316 137 Cal. Rptr. 635 MANUEL M. LIODAS, as Trustee, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FRED N. SAHADI, Defendant and Appellant. Docket No. S.F. 23533. Supreme Court of California. April 11, 1977. *281 COUNSEL Ellen Lake, Richard M. Heimann, Kenne