Cases

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

12/21/2023 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 22, 2023 Session JETTON DEVELOPMENTS, LLC v. ESTATE OF DOROTHY HUDDLESTON ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sumner County No. 2021CV-97 Louis W. Oliver, Chancellor

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SHEPHERD, J. This is an appeal by Castelo Development, LLC from an order vacating a foreclosure sale. Appellee Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund, Inc. moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground Castelo Development, the purchaser at the sale, lacks standing to prosecute the appeal. We dismiss the appeal on the authority of Beggi v. Ocean Bank, 91 So.3d 193 (Fl

KRAUSER, C.J. Cuesport Properties, LLC, appellant, sold a commercial condominium unit in Anne Arundel County to Critical Developments, LLC, appellee. Under the terms of the agreement of sale, Cuesport Properties, as the seller, was to build a demising wall1 between Critical Developments’ unit and an adjacent unit. Cuesport Properties was to complete the wall within thirty days of closing and, if it

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SUPPI CONSTRUCTION, INC. ) a Delaware Corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) C.A. No. N18L-11-009 AML v. ) ) EC DEVELOPMENTS I, LLC, ) a Nevada corporation, ) FRONTIER BUILDING CORP., ) a Florida

PATRICIA RIVET MURRAY, Judge. |, This is a suit arising out of an agreement to purchase property. The buyer, Kenneth Saavedra, brought this suit against the seller, Jerry Wallace, and seven other defendants. In response, Mr. Wallace and five of the other defendants (hereinafter referred to as the “Wallace Defendants”)1 filed exceptions of prematurity and lack of subject m

ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. Nos. 54, 55] Denise Page Hood, Chief Judge I. INTRODUCTION On December 18, 2013, Plaintiffs Hoenig Developments, Inc. (“Hoenig, Inc.”) and Hoenig Developments, LLC (“Hoenig, LLC”) filed a five-count Complaint against Defendant. The Complaint included the following claims: (1) Count I—Trademark Infringement Pursuant to 15 U.S.

CARLTON, J., for the Court: ¶ 1. Coastal Developments Inc. appeals the Harrison County Circuit Court’s judgment in favor of Ruth Dedeaux in the amount of $38,419.76. Coastal Developments argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict. Finding no error, we affirm. FACTS ¶ 2. Coastal Developments and Dedeaux entered into discussions regardin

Adams, Judge. Alan L. Henderson appeals from the trial court’s order confirming an arbitration award and denying his petition to vacate and modify that award. We affirm. The arbitration was conducted pursuant to an arbitration provision contained in the parties’ “New Construction Purchase and Sale Agreement” dated March 6, 1999. Henderson was the purchaser of a new home under the agreement, and Millner De

OPINION AND ORDER 1 LETTOW, Judge. Pending before the court in this post-award bid protest are an application by plaintiff, Q Integrated Companies, LLC (“Q Integrated”), for an award of bid preparation and proposal costs (“bid costs”) pursuant to RCFC 54(d)(1), the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(2),

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

CHIN, J. CORRIGAN, J. LIU, J. CUÉLLAR, J. KRUGER, J. IRION, J.* Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

(2008) SANLUIS DEVELOPMENTS, L.L.C., Sanluis Investments, L.L.C., and Sanluis Corporación, S.A. de C.V., Petitioners, v. CCP SANLUIS, L.L.C. and AIP-Sanluis, L.L.C., Respondents. No. 06 Civ. 11531 (RJH). United States District Court, S.D. New York. June 3, 2008. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RICHARD J. HOLWELL, District Judge. Petitione

MEMORANDUM * Xebec, LLC appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of *944Industrial Developments International, Inc. in Xebec’s action for specific performance of a contract to purchase industrial real estate. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. As the parties are familiar with the facts and proced

C. The Common Law Fraud Claim is Dismissed with Prejudice The Pembertons assert a fraud claim against Nationstar based on Nationstar's alleged failure to report deferred interest payments. They allege that "Nationstar knowingly and intentionally misrepresented the correct amount of interest that plaintiffs paid to it in 2013" on their Form 1098, and "intentionally concealed" its wrongful reporting. (FAC ¶ 73.) The basis of

CHIN, J. CORRIGAN, J. LIU, J. KRUGER, J. GROBAN, J. JENKINS, J.* Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.