Cases

KESSLER, J. ¶ 23. (dissenting). I conclude that the trial court applied a standard of law that our supreme court has withdrawn. I also conclude that McDermott has alleged facts which constitute a new *333factor under the correct standard. Thus, I would reverse and remand for a hearing. ¶ 24. To obtain modification of sentence, a defendant must es

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LAKE, District Judge. Pending before the court is Darrell Florence’s Motion to Remand (Docket Entry No. 3). Because the court agrees with Florence that defendants did not timely file their notice of removal, the court will grant Florence’s motion. On November 4, 1997, counsel for Florence faxed a copy of his state court petition to counsel for defendants

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, dissenting, in which BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, join, and in which CARNES, Circuit Judge, joins as to Part V: Following the November 7, 2000 general election, the Florida Supreme Court handed down a decision in Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So.2d 1220 (Fla.), vacated by Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 471, — L.E

DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge. After a three-day nonjury trial, the trial judge entered an order denying the appellant’s petition to revoke probate. The grounds for that petition were that the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity because of her addiction to alcohol and drugs, and that when the testatrix executed her will she was under the undue influence of the appellee. The appellee, who was the testatrix’ attorney, was name

267 Neb. 761 STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE, v. ROBERT McDERMOTT, APPELLANT. No. S-02-1489. Supreme Court of Nebraska. Filed April 9, 2004. Gregory C. Damman, of Blevens & Damman, for appellant. Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and Susan J. Gustafson for appellee. HENDRY, C.J., WRIGHT, CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, McCORMACK, and MILLER-LERMAN, JJ.

298 F.Supp.2d 905 (2003) James J. MCDERMOTT, Regional Director of Region 31 of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, and Dura Art Stone, Inc., Respondent Employer, and Amalgamated Industrial Workers Union, Local 61, Respondent Union. No. EDCV03752RT(SGLX). United States District Court, C.D. California. August 13

ON APPELLANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING PETITION FOR CERTIORARI Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES, BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges. ORDER: In order to ensure that the United States Supreme Court has sufficient time to rule on the certiorari petition in this case, the Florida Secretary o

BY THE COURT: On November 13, 2000, Robert C. Touchston, Diana L. Touchston and Deborah Shepperd (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), registered voters in Brevard County, Florida, filed a verified complaint and a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction in the district court for the Middle District of Florida. The *1132Plaintiffs sued members o

OAKES, Senior Circuit Judge: Defendant James J. McDermott appeals from a judgment entered against him in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York following a jury trial before Kimba Wood, Judge, convicting him of conspiracy to commit insider trading in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and of insider trading in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 788(b) and 78ff and of 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. On appeal

PER CURIAM. Marshall King, the plaintiff in this civil rights lawsuit, complains that he was forced to wear a see-through jumpsuit that exposed his genitals and buttocks while he was transported from a county jail to state prison. He contends that this amounted to an unjustified and humiliating strip-search that violated his rights under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments to the f

COURT OF APPEALS Giy • STATE OF WASHING ILv 2013 JUL 15 AH 9- 1U IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In the Matter of the Marriage of: WENDY A. MCDERMOTT DIVISION ONE Appellant, No. 69107-4-1 and JUSTIN J. MCDERMOTT,

Opinion SHEA, J. The plaintiff, Sharon McDermott, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury trial, in favor of the defendants,1 in an action to recover damages for personal injuries she sustained as a result of the defendants’ alleged negligent maintenance of their property. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) failed t

518 F.Supp.2d 289 (2007) UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Paul P. McDERMOTT, Plaintiff, v. GENENTECH, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil No. 2:05cv-147. United States District Court, D. Maine. October 22, 2007. Joseph H. Groff, III, Jensen, Baird, Gardner & Henry, Portland, ME, Robert L. King, Law Office of Robert L. King, St. Louis, MI, George A. Zelcs, Korein Til

OPINION OF THE COURT Richard A. Goldberg, J. This action for divorce raises a novel question of law concerning equitable distribution. To what extent, if at all, may a Trial Judge restrict a pensioner’s choice of options under his pension plan in order to protect the nonemployee spouse’s interest in the pension following equitable distribution? Plaintiff and defendant are 59 and 62 year

[1] OPINION [2] This matter came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on May 19, 1995, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised by the defendant's appeal should not be summarily decided. After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda submitted by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and that this matter should be summarily decided. [3] The defendant, John Louis

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-13394 COMMONWEALTH vs. WILLIAM F. McDERMOTT. Norfolk. October 2,

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 490 CAF 11-02154 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. IN THE MATTER OF AMANDA J. MCDERMOTT, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ANDREW JOHN BALE, RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. ----------------------------------------- SANFORD A. CHURCH, ESQ., ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, APPELLANT.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 14 The basic question presented in this case is whether the reports of a mental health care professional, requested by an employer and bearing on the fitness of an employee for employment, enjoy the defense of an absolute or qualified privilege in a defamation suit. If an absolute or qualified privilege pertains

JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge: The antitrust defendants in this interlocutory appeal, allowed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), seek to have this Court review the refusal of the District Court to grant summary judgment in their favor on the plaintiffs’1 state2 and federal3 antitrust and RICO4 claims. As a defense to th

ANNE C. CONWAY, United States District Judge *1265This cause comes before the Court on Defendant's, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. ("Defendant"), Motion for Summary Judgment filed on June 1, 2016. (Doc. No. 47). Plaintiff, C.J.J. by and through C.R.J. as Next Friend, Parent, and Natural Guardian ("Plaintiff"), filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant's M