Cases

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperisdenied.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperisdenied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

REINHARD, Judge. Husband filed a motion to modify that portion of the parties’ divorce decree awarding alimony to wife. From the court’s order overruling his motion, he appeals. We have reviewed the record and affirm. The parties were divorced in 1973 and the general custody of their minor child was given to the wife. The decree required the husband to pay the wife $400 per month alimony and $200 per mont

767 A.2d 626 (2001) Carl CREWS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (RIPKIN), Respondent. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted on Briefs December 17, 1999. Decided January 19, 2001. *628 Mark R. Schmidt, Media, for petitioner. Marianne Henry, Philadelphia, for respondent. Before SMITH and FLAH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge: Plaintiff Raheem Crews (“plaintiff’) was arrested, detained, and prosecuted for a robbery he did not commit. After plaintiffs arrest, the lead detective on the case, defendant Nicholas Lemma (“Det. Lemma”), learned that plaintiff had been in jail at the time of the robbery (for an unrelated incident), but Det. Lemma kept this information to himself. Th

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: In this case we must decide whether ERISA preempts a state statute that purportedly prohibits a company from deducting the amount of pension benefits previously paid to a retiree from the amount of the retiree’s subsequent retroactive award of workers’ compensation. We must also determine whether the pension plan in issue authorizes this offset. The district court held that ERISA controls and that t

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated December 10, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, a

Kane, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Coccoma, J), entered December 7, 2006 in Delaware County, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff commenced this personal injury action in June 1999 and issue was joined two months later. In September 2003, Supreme Court granted a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against George Mack and Gail Mack. In June 2006

360 F.Supp.2d 105 (2004) Ana GUSTAVE-SCHMIDT, Plaintiff, v. Elaine L. CHAO, Secretary, Department of Labor, Defendant. No. CIV.A.01-0781(RBW). United States District Court, District of Columbia. March 30, 2004. *106 *107 David Paul Murphy, Kooritzky & Associates, Arlington, VA, for Plainti

OPINION OF THE COURT Scudder, J. Defendant contends on appeal that the Court of Claims erred in refusing to preclude claimants’ use of statements obtained from employees of the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) at the behest of claimants’ counsel, allegedly in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-104 (a) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.35 [a] [1]). Defendant also contends that the court e

*********** The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Ledford and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the Opinion and Award. *********** The Full Commi

OPINION OF THE COURT Philip J. Patti, J. Introduction This case raises an important ethical issue: when, if ever, may a claimant’s attorney or his agent conduct ex parte interviews of key fact witnesses employed by the State of New York? *501Facts On June 25, 1996, claimant1

CARTER, Justice. Plaintiff, Louis H. Schmidt, who had been employed by the defendant, Black-hawk Fleet, Inc. (Blackhawk), to clean barges intended for hauling cargo on the Mississippi River, appeals from an adverse summary judgment denying his alleged “seaman” status required to maintain this personal injury action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688. After reviewing the summary-judgment motion papers most favorably toward

69 F.Supp.2d 706 (1999) Robert H. SCHMIDT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MONTGOMERY KONE, INC., Defendant. No. CIV.A. 98-3369. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. October 22, 1999. *707 *708 Patricia V. Pierce, Catherine Merino Reisman, Willig, Williams & Davidson, James A. Funt, Wil

184 Kan. 21 (1959) 334 P.2d 345 WALTER MEYER, doing business as MEYER CASING CREW, Plaintiff v. RICHARD B. SCHMIDT, et al., Defendants; C.B. MURRAY, C.L. HANES and HERBERT B. SHUMAKER, Appellees; HELEN L. VANCE and UNION NATIONAL BANK in Kansas City, Missouri, nonresident, ancillary co-executors of the Estate of W. Harry Vance, also known as William Harry Vance, Deceased, Appellants. Nos. 41,054 and 4

MAUS, Judge. By Count I of their petition, the plaintiffs essentially alleged the following. They owned a described tract of 40 acres. In February, 1980, the defendant entered that tract and cut timber with a value of $3,120. They prayed for a judgment under § 537.-340 for $9,360. By Count II the plaintiffs again alleged that in February, 1980, the defendant entered that tract. They also alleged that on September 1, 1980, th

This is an appeal by the city of Dayton from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County entered upon a jury verdict finding that the appellee, Clifford C. Schmidt, is eligible to participate in the Workers' Compensation Fund. Schmidt was a lieutenant with the Dayton Fire Department, and since 1980, he had been assigned as a supervisor at the department communications center. In this capacity, he and his crew of three dispatchers normally worked a twenty-four-hour shift begin

BAUER, Chief Judge. The constitution empowers Congress “[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Article I, sec. 8, cl. 4. Any alien who seeks to acquire the “precious right” of American citizenship must meet all the requirements fixed by Congress. Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 122 & 131, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 1335 & 1339, 87 L.Ed. 1796 (1943). One of the requirements Congress established

621 F.Supp. 734 (1985) Don SERPAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Charles E. SCHMIDT, et al., Defendants. No. 82 C 4715. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. July 11, 1985. *735 *736 Roger Pascal, Thomas B. Quinn, Marci A. Eisenstein, Jeanne L. Nowaczewski of Schiff, Hardin & Waite, H