Cases

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CATHERINE C. EAGLES, District Judge. Earlier this year, the North Carolina General Assembly passed the ‘Woman’s Right to Know Act” (“the Act”), 2011 N.C. Sess. Laws 405 (to be codified at N.C. GemStat. §§ 90-21.80 through 90-21.92). The Act is slated to become effective on October 26, 2011. The Plaintiffs — several North Carolina physicians and health care providers —

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge WILKINSON wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge TRAXLER and Judge DUNCAN joined. OPINION WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: In late 2011, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the North Carolina “Woman’s Right to Know Act,” (“the Act”), a statute that requires certain informed consent proced

KLEIN, J. Appellants installed a wood floor in their second floor condominium and the appellee condo association sought an injunction requiring removal of the floor. That action was abated so that the parties could arbitrate pursuant to section 718.1255, Florida Statutes (1994). The association prevailed *1218in the arbitration, but the unit owners prevailed on a s

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979); Trytek v. Gale Industries, Inc., 3 So.3d 1194, 1196 (Fla.2009).

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114 (Fla.2000); Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000); Robinson v. State, 373 So.2d 898 (Fla.1979). STEVENSON, C.J., KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

MEMORANDUM OPINION JACKSON L. KISER, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. I heard oral arguments on the motions on August 6, 2015. For the reasons stated herein, I will grant in part Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment [ECF No. 23] and deny Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 27]. This matter will proceed to trial on

Journal Entries (1830-33): Journal 4: (1) Motion for publication of notice *p. 422; (2) demurrer withdrawn nisi, motion for notice by publication *p. 441; (3) rule to plead, answer, or demur; copy of rule ordered published *p. 459> (4) motion to take bill as confessed, continued *p. 485; (5) motion for security for costs *p. 513; (6) rule to file security for costs *p. 519. Journal3: (7) Motion to dismiss *p. 5; (8) bill dismissed *p

909 P.2d 858 (1996) 322 Or. 457 Cheryl HUFF, Respondent on Review, v. GREAT WESTERN SEED CO., a New Jersey Corporation, and Lance Dickey, Petitioners on Review. CC 930061; CA A80301; SC S41976. Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc. Argued and Submitted September 12, 1995. Decided January 26, 1996. *8

FAY, Circuit Judge: Insurance and the complications of applications, premiums, receipts, and beneficiaries form the foundation of this action to recover the proceeds on a one million dollar life insurance policy. ' The plaintiff, R. Stuart Huff, 1 appeals from a directed ver

COX, Circuit Judge: We consider this case for the second time. In the first proceeding, the district court granted a directed verdict in favor of Standard Life Insurance Company (“SLIC”). We reversed the district court’s decision and remanded for a new trial. Huff v. Standard Life Ins. Co., 683 F.2d 1363 (11th Cir.1982) (Huff I)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CATHERINE C. EAGLES, District Judge. In 2011, North Carolina imposed new requirements on health care providers who treat patients seeking abortions. The Woman’s Right to Know Act (“the Act”), codified at N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 90-21.80 through 90-21.92, sets forth the information physicians and other health care providers1 (hereinafter “provi

*470 Per Curiam. Petitioners Darin Ryburn and Edmundo Zepeda, along with two other officers from the Burbank Police Department, responded to a call from Bellarmine-Jefferson High School in Burbank, California. When the officers arrived at the school, the principal informed them that a student, Vincent Huf

Cite as: 565 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DARIN RYBURN, ET AL. v. GEORGE R. HUFF, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 11–208. Decided January 23, 2012 PER CURIAM. Petitioners Darin Ryburn and Edmundo Zepeda, along with two other officers from the Burbank Police Depart- ment, responded to a call from Bel

Cite as: 565 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DARIN RYBURN, et al. v. GEORGE R. HUFF, et al. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 11–208. Decided January 23, 2012 PER CURIAM. Petitioners Darin Ryburn and Edmundo Zepeda, along with two other officers from the Burbank Police Depart- ment, responded to a call from Be

Cite as: 565 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DARIN RYBURN, ET AL. v. GEORGE R. HUFF, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 11–208. Decided January 23, 2012 PER CURIAM. Petitioners Darin Ryburn and Edmundo Zepeda, along with two other officers from the Burbank Police Depart- ment, responded to a call from Bel

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge WILKINSON wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge TRAXLER and Judge DUNCAN joined. WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: At issue here is a North Carolina statute that requires physicians to perform an ultrasound, display the sonogram, and describe the fetus to women seeking abortions. A physician must display and describe the image

643 F.Supp. 705 (1986) R. Stuart HUFF, as Trustee, Plaintiff, v. STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE CO., a Mississippi Corp., Defendant. No. 79-1941-CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. July 21, 1986. *706 R. Stuart Huff, Miami, Fla., Steven A. Pappy, Coral Gables, Fla., for plaintiff. W.M. O'Brien, Fleming, O'Brien, Flem

KIDWELL, J. Pro Tem, concurring. I concur in the Court’s decision on a substantially different analysis than articulated by the majority opinion. I would find, consistent with Hoffman v. Arave, 236 F.3d 523 (9th Cir.2001), ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised by petitioners represented by the same counsel at trial and during initial post-convi

RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in part, and dissenting in part: I would pose the issue in this case as whether it was clearly established law that a warrantless entry predicated on a perceived emergency violates the Fourth Amendment despite the lack of probable cause. In my view, that point of law was not clearly established, and should result in our affirming the grant of

PER CURIAM.