Cases

2 S.W.3d 867 (1999) STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Karen L. RIGGS, Appellant. No. WD 55763. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. October 5, 1999. *868 Craig A. Johnston, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant. Philip M. Koppe, Kansas City, for Respondent. Before: Presiding Judge LAURA DENVIR STITH

102 N.H. 519 (1960) IN RE WILLIAM G. BARNHART ESTATE. No. 4833. Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Argued April 6, 1960. Decided June 27, 1960. *521 Nighswander, Lord & Bownes, and Robert G. Wakefield (Mr. Nighswander orally), for the petitioners. Louis C. Wyman, Attorney General and <

This was a suit on a promissory note and to foreclose a real estate mortgage given to secure the same, commenced by defendant in error, plaintiff below, against C. H. Barnhart and his wife, Katie Barnhart. The defense below was based upon allegations of forgery by artifice and fraud said to have been employed by plaintiff in securing the signatures of defendants to the instruments involved. A second defense was that of usury. The mortgage sued upon was what is known as a commission or

MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN D. BATES, United States District Judge This negligence lawsuit stems from allegedly unauthorized transfers from plaintiff Mai Thi Thu Tran’s Citibank checking account. Defendant Citibank moved to dismiss, arguing that Tran’s claims are time-barred under the bank’s Client Manual, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act’s (EFTA) statute of

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE SAUNDRA S. AND DANIEL P. WAHL STATE OF INDIANA Lawrence D. Newman Gregory F. Zoeller Newman & Newman, P.C. Attorney General of Indiana Noblesville, Indiana Michael G. Worden Scott L. Barnhart Ian A.T. McLean Diana B. Smith Deputy Attorneys Gener

DISSENT STRAS, Justice (dissenting). Each of the three branches of government has a constitutionally distinct role in the criminal-justice system. The executive branch, as the State’s representative, has the authority to decide whether to prosecute a case and which charges, if any, to bring. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974);

737 F.Supp.2d 674 (2010) Eddie MERIDA, Plaintiff v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner Social Security Administration, Defendant. Civil Action No. 10-68-DLB. United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, at Lexington. August 30, 2010. *676 Roger Donald Riggs, Morgan, Madden, Brashear, Collins & Yeast, London, KY

CHUTICH, Justice. This appeal raises two issues. First, we must determine whether a defendant forfeits a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that is based on a statutory interpretation argument when he fails to raise it in the district court. We conclude that the forfeiture rule does not apply to such a challenge. Second, we consider how to apply the intent element in subdivision 1(a) of Minnesota's criminal

*975535 U. S. 1099; 537 U. S. 842; ante, p. 902; 538 U. S. 1013; 538 U. S. 1034; 538 U. S. 1057; ante, p. 903; 538 U. S. 1035; *976No. 02-1539.

*975535 U. S. 1099; 537 U. S. 842; ante, p. 902; 538 U. S. 1013; 538 U. S. 1034; 538 U. S. 1057; ante, p. 903; 538 U. S. 1035; *976No. 02-1539.

353 B.R. 465 (2006) In re WELLINGTON APARTMENT, LLC, Debtor. Wellington Apartment, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Charles Clotworthy, et al., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 04-50301-DHA, Adversary No. 05-5029. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia, Newport News Division. October 20, 2006. *466 *467

MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c), plaintiff John R. Johnson, III seeks judicial review of a final adverse decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. The Commissioner denied Mr. Johnson's claims for disability insurance benefits and suppleme

155 T.C. No. 2 UNITED STATES TAX COURT WHISTLEBLOWER 21276-13W, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent WHISTLEBLOWER 21277-13W, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket Nos. 21276-13W, 21277-13W. Filed August 26, 2020. Ps’ claims for whistleblower awards have been the subject of two prior Opinions. Whistleblower 21276-13W v. Commissioner, 144 T.C. 290

PER CURIAM. We have for review a referee's report recommending that Respondent, Jeremy W. Alters, be found guilty of professional misconduct and not disciplined. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. As discussed below, after having considered the referee's report, the record in this case, the parties' briefs, and oral arguments, we approve in part the

USCA11 Case: 22-10811 Document: 71-1 Date Filed: 08/29/2024 Page: 1 of 28 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-10811 ____________________ ECB USA, INC., a Florida Co

USCA11 Case: 22-10811 Document: 64-1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024 Page: 1 of 28 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-10811 ____________________ ECB USA, INC., a Florida Co

504 S.E.2d 512 (1998) 233 Ga. App. 445 LEDFORD v. The STATE. No. A98A0899. Court of Appeals of Georgia. July 15, 1998. *513 Whitmer & Law, George H. Law III, Gainesville, for appellant. Timothy G. Madison, District Attorney, Hillary M. Krepistman, Robin R. Riggs, Assistant District Attorneys, fo

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 62A23 Filed 13 December 2024 PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Petitioner v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(a)(2) from an order and opinion on petition for review of final decision entered on 29 September 2022 by Judge Julianna Theall Earp, Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases, in

*1093ORDER Kimberly J. Mueller, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT), the plaintiffs in this action, seek an order directing the United States Department of Labor (the DOL) to certify their applications for funding under section 13(c) of the Urban M

MEMORANDUM DECISION Rebecca B. Connelly, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge The question in this case is whether Ford Motor Credit Company LLC (“Ford”) may enforce an ipso facto clause to repossess a vehicle when there is no payment or other contractual default and the bankruptcy court did not review a reaffirmation agreement prior to the debt- or’s discharge. For the reasons explained herein, the Court concludes