Cases

OPINION MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE This case is before the court for ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment (# 23) filed by Defendant, Petersen Health Care VII, LLC, d/b/a Mason Point (Mason Point). This court has carefully reviewed the arguments of the parties and the documents filed by the parties. Following this careful and thorough review, Mason Point’s Motion for Summary J

744 N.E.2d 877 (2001) In re the MARRIAGE OF Kevin PETERSEN, Petitioner-Appellant, and Janet Kellogg Petersen, Respondent-Appellee. Nos. 1-98-4078, 1-99-0228, 1-99-0380, 1-99-0470, 1-99-0473, 1-99-3086. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division. February 1, 2001. Rehearing Denied March 23, 2001. *880

1-98-4078) FOURTH DIVISION 1-99-0228) FEBRUARY 1, 2001 1-99-0380) 1-99-0470) 1-99-0473) 1-99-3086) Cons. IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of KEVIN PETERSEN, ) Cook County. ) Petitioner-Appellant, )

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1447 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1448 OPINION In this case, plaintiff Bette Petersen appeals from a judgment dismissing her fraud and breach of fid

On May 14, 1977, plaintiff Cynthia Petersen was injured in an automobile accident in Tacoma. Plaintiff was making a lawful turn at an intersection when her car was struck by a vehicle driven by Larry Knox. The *Page 423 Knox vehicle apparently ran a red light and was traveling approximately 50 to 60 miles per hour. Knox appeared to witnesses to be greatly influenced by drugs. At the time of the accident, Knox was on probation for a second d

*158 WIGGINS, Justice. The president of a public employee union and members of the general assembly filed a petition for injunctive relief and writ of mandamus' challenging the Governor's item veto of appropriations for the mental health institutes in Mount Pleasant and Clarinda. The parties both filed moti

In this action of trespass for damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appealed from the action of the learned court below in entering judgment n. o. v. for defendant. In an able and comprehensive opinion by President Judge REESE, in which all pertinent facts and authorities are reviewed, the contributory negligence of plaintiff is clearly established. Our examination of the record has convinced us there is no escape from that conclusion. Judgment of the learned court below is affirme

Stevens, J. The defendants contend that there was no consideration for the note upon which judgment was entered because it appears upon the face of the note that the only *312consideration therefor was “commission for selling” certain real estate described therein. This contention is based on the fact that sec. 240.10 of the Statutes as construed in Hale v. Kreisel, <

McCREA, District Judge. The plaintiff, as assignee of one Joseph Odell, instituted this action in the city court of Logan City, Cache county, Utah, against the defendant to recover judgment for an installment of $898.56 claimed to be past due by the terms of a certain contract of sale of real property made and entered into between the said Joseph Odell, as the seller, and the defendant, as the buyer, of said lands in said cont

Rich, J.: The learned Special Term in an oral opinion has held that the assessments were levied and imposed prior to the date of the sale and has directed judgment for the plaintiff. In this he erred. The rule is well established that taxes or assessments are not considered as levied or imposed until the issuance of the warrants to the proper officer for their collection. (Ogden v. Getty, 10

435 F.Supp. 938 (1975) Eugene E. PETERSEN, an Individual, and Petersen Tool Co., a Nebraska Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. FEE INTERNATIONAL, LTD., and H. J. Flewelling and Resco, Ltd., Defendants, Mitsubishi International Corp., Respondent. Civ. No. 72-181. United States District Court, W. D. Oklahoma. December 4, 1975. *939 Jo

NIES, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from the grant of summa- . ry judgment by the United States District Court of the Central District of California (Real, C.J.), entered April 18, 1983, dismissing a complaint by Petersen Manufacturing Co. for patent infringement and unfair competition, and from an award of attorney fees to the accused infringer, Central Purchasing, Inc. Peter

SANDERS, Justice. We granted supervisory writs to review the trial judge’s instanter rescission of an order waiving the prepayment of court costs by defendant because of poverty. We hold that the trial judge erred in rescinding the order without an evidentiary hearing and remand the case for further proceedings. On November 5, 1971, City Stores Company filed suit against Quimet J. Petersen on an open account

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 15–2099 Filed November 10, 2016 Amended January 25, 2017 DANNY HOMAN, RICH TAYLOR, JERRY KEARNS, MARK SMITH, THOMAS COURTNEY, JANET PETERSEN, BRUCE HUNTER, CURT HANSON, TONY BISIGNANO, HERMAN QUIRMBACH, DICK DEARDEN, ART STAED, AKO ABDUL-SAMAD, JO OLDSON, RUTH ANN GAINES, SHARON STECKMAN, TODD TAYLOR, MARY GASKILL, KIRSTEN RUNNING-MARQUARDT, TIMI BR

This is an action in tort, based on deceit. Plaintiff in his petition pleaded both an oral warranty and a fraudulent representation. It is true that a warranty may be made the basis of fraud, provided that the plaintiff pleads it as fraud, and makes the necessary allegations to constitute fraud. See Hughesv. Funston Smith, 23 Iowa 257. Fraud, however, is distinguishable from breach of warranty. A warranty rests on contract, while fr

Motion for reargument denied, without costs. Present — Kelly, P. J., Rich, Jaycox, Kelby and Young, JJ.

Although there are findings of fact made, we are of opinion that the complaint was dismissed for failure of proof. The findings are modified accordingly, and the judgment amended so as to dismiss the complaint without prejudice, instead of on the merits. As so modified the judgment is unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Kelly, P. J., Rich, Jaycox, Manning and Kapper, JJ.

Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, unless plaintiff within twenty days stipulate to reduce the verdict by the sum of $315.28, and the additional sum of $282, as the evidence shows that plaintiff’s services at the time of defendant’s visit to New York were not worth more than $40, and that for his trips to Ireland in March and October his services were not worth more than $160 for each journey; in which event the ju

Respondent has moved to dismiss the appeal and cited many cases in support of the motion. Appellants have made no reply thereto, but the motion involves an important question of practice and is of sufficient importance to justify a somewhat extended review. The decree was filed December 29, 1926. No notice was given by respondent, so that appellant had six months within which to file notice of intention to move for a new trial or to file and serve their notice of appeal. On June 25, 19