Cases

Judge Edwin A. Lombard |! Before the court in these consolidated' cases are the cross-appeals of Michael Edward Blake (“Mr. Blake”) and Alicia Victoria DiMarco Blake (“Ms. DiMarco”).1 After review of the record in light of the applicable law and arguments of the parties, we find Ms. DiMarco’s nullity action was untimely filed, reverse the district court judgment of October 31,

MADELEINE M. LANDRIEU, Judge. | ¾Alicia DiMarco appeals the district court’s dismissal of her lesion claim upon the granting of exceptions of no cause of action and res judicata filed by her former spouse, Michael Blake. Mr. Blake has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the ruling Ms. DiMarco seeks to appeal is an interlocutory judgment that is not yet appealable. For the reasons that follow, we find t

GERBER, J. The appellant, an attorney who was sued in the trial court for legal malpractice, appeals the trial court’s order granting a motion for additur and subsequent motion for new trial on damages in favor of appel-lees Robert K. Blake, Jr. and Blake Development Corporation (“the developers”). The attorney argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law in granting the additur and, therefore, erred as a matter of l

*********** The Full Commission reviewed the prior Decision and Order, based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and assignments of error before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence; receive further evidence; rehear the parties or their representatives; or amend the decision. Accordingly, the Full Commission affirms the Decision and Order of the Deputy Commiss

QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge: The district court found Blake Charboneau to be a "sexually dangerous person" under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (the "Act"). 1 18 U.S.C. § 4247

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This Cause having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and Adjudged: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

392 S.C. 494 (2011) 709 S.E.2d 79 William D. CURTIS, Respondent, v. Sandra Morris BLAKE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Brandon T. Blake, Appellant. No. 4792. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Heard September 15, 2010. Decided February 16, 2011. Rehearing Denied April 22, 2011.

Doyle, Chief Judge. This is the second appearance before this Court of this case, which arises from a tort claim by plaintiffs Carl and Yvonne Blake (collectively, “the plaintiffs”) following the death of their son in a day habilitation facility. In our previous opinion, we vacated the grant of summary judgment to defendants, KES, Inc., Sandra and Kenneth Browner, Mabel Sempler, a

C. Wayland Blake appeals the trial court's judgment dismissing his lawsuit against John L. Stinson for want of prosecution. We reverse and remand. On February 17, 2004, Blake filed a complaint against Stinson, Donald T. Gosnay, and S G Custom Classics, Inc. ("S G"), alleging fraud claims against Stinson and Gosnay and breach-of-contract claims against S G and Gosnay. The details of Blake's allegations are not material to our decision in this case. The defendants were each serv

633 F.Supp.2d 1231 (2009) Jonathan ABERKALNS, individually and on behalf of all Heirs and as surviving natural son of Oskars Aberkalns, Decedent, Plaintiff, v. Travis L. BLAKE, an individual and resident of Michigan, and Priority Transportation, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants. Civil Action No. 08-cv-01080-CMA-KMT. United States District Court, D. Colorado. May 15, 2009

SEVERSON, Retired Justice *464 [¶1.] After considering a petition to vacate a public roadway and section line in Butte County, the County Commission entered a resolution vacating the road. Ben Blake, Jodi Massie, and Abby Olson (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Olson") jointly appealed the Commission's decisio

*********** The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the briefs and oral arguments before the Commission. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner. The Full Commission AFFIRMS with some modi

Catherine C. Blake, United States District Judge This is a case about consumer debt-collection practices. The plaintiffs own a home in Bel Air, Maryland, that sits within a homeowners' association called "Country Walk Community Association, Inc." (hereafter "Country Walk"). Am. Compl. ¶ 11. Defendant Elmore & Throop, P.C. is a law firm retained by Country Walk to collect debts owed to it by constituent homeowners, including, as

11 Cal.Rptr.3d 678 (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 543 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Tom BLAKE, Defendant and Appellant. No. B163498 Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7 April 6, 2004 As Modified April 16, 2004 Review Denied June 16, 2004 *679 Greg M. Kane, under

113 Cal.Rptr.2d 422 (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 728 Diana C. BLAKE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Gordon ECKER et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. B148276. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three. November 2, 2001. *425 David P. Cwiklo, Woodland Hills, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Cohen & G

104 F.3d 1158 1997 A.M.C. 609, 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 42,97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 344,97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 533 ROBERT E. BLAKE INC., dba General Engineering and MachineWorks, Third-party-plaintiff-Appellant,v.EXCEL ENVIRONMENTAL, Third-party-defendant-Appellee. Nos. 94-16597, 95-16171. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-76,786-02 EX PARTE ROBERT SPARKS

PER CURIAM. Andrea G. Briggs appeals the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous her civil action. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Briggs v. Blake, No. CA-03-3130WDQ-1 (D.Md. Nov. 14, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately present

ORDER JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, District Judge. Plaintiff Ray Robert alleges that Defendants Douglas G. Carter, the Hamilton County Council and the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners (“Defendants”) failed to exempt him from TASER training or to provide him a reasonable accommodation in violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). He further claims tha

PER CURIAM. The State filed an Affidavit of Violation of Probation alleging appellant violated Condition 5 of an Order of Probation by committing two new law offenses. The affidavit also alleged that appellant violated Condition 10 of the Order of Probation by failing to pay for costs of supervision and court costs. Appellant was subsequently convicted of one of the new law vi