Cases

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 01/27/2023 09:04 AM CST - 337 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 313 Nebraska Reports SCHAEFFER V. FRAKES Cite as 313 Neb. 337 Bernard Schaeffer, appellant, v. Scott Fra

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘o

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MARK G. SCHAEFFER, SR., ) ) Plaintiff/Counterclaim- ) Defendant ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2018-0926-MTZ ) DONALD LOCKWOOD, ) ) Defendant/Counterclaim- ) Plaintiff. ) MEMORANDUM OP

FILED June 11, 2021 released at 3:00 p.m. EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGI

280 Md. 10 (1977) 370 A.2d 1138 UNITED BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF MARYLAND v. MARVIN O. SCHAEFFER [No. 107, September Term, 1976.] Court of Appeals of Maryland. Decided March 22, 1977. The cause was argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES, LEVINE, ELDRIDGE and ORTH, JJ. Patrick F. Mahoney, with whom were Giordan

MOLL, J. *631 *314 The defendants, Christine Kepple and Mark Kepple, 1 appeal from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered in favo

32 Md. App. 339 (1976) 360 A.2d 461 MARVIN O. SCHAEFFER v. UNITED BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF MARYLAND. No. 921, September Term, 1975. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. Decided July 26, 1976. The cause was argued before MOYLAN, POWERS and MOORE, JJ. William F. Higgins for appellant. Patrick F. Mahoney and Char

HARPER, J. The defendant, Steven Marcano, appeals from the judgment rendered against him, after a court trial, for breach of his obligation under a personal guarantee of a $250,000 line of credit extended to My Little Star Baby Products, Inc. (My Little Star), by the plaintiff, Valley National Bank, as successor in interest to Park Avenue Bank (Valley National). The defendant challenges

STRINE, Chief Justice: I. Introduction This appeal arises out of the entry of a judgment by confession against the defendants, Michael A. Zimmerman and Connie Jo Zimmerman, by the Superior Court. The Zimmermans argue that the Superior Court erred in two ways. First, the Zim-mermans argue that they were residents of Florida at the time the document authorizing judgment by confession was executed, and that

567 S.W.2d 30 (1978) Charles L. GUNN et al., Appellants, v. Ruben SCHAEFFER et al., Appellees. No. 6705. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, El Paso. May 3, 1978. Howard Jefferson Gibbs, El Paso, for appellants. *31 Mayfield, Broaddus & Perrenot, Francis C. Broaddus, Jr., James B. McIntyre, El Paso, for appellees.

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

DiPENTIMA, C.J. *775 The defendant Christopher M. Fitzpatrick 1 *734 appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss and from the summ

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

[Cite as Washington Mut. Bank v. Litvin, 2014-Ohio-4670.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100409 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES

KELLER, J. In this foreclosure action, the self-represented defendant, Genevieve Henderson, appeals from the trial court's rendering of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 1 The defendant claims that (1) the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it had standing to foreclose, an

OPINION & ORDER ALGENON L. MARBLEY, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on “Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Certification, Expedited Discovery and Court Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(B).” (Doc. 36.) This Court ruled on “P

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘o

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: * Ellery and Laura Pennington (jointly) and Traci Smith sued HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (jointly, “the bank”), in state court, alleging various state-law claims including breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Texas Constitution and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act; plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to fores

*471OPINION MCKEE, Circuit Judge. Appellants, the “Fidelity Shareholders,” appeal from the district court’s summary judgment ruling, which (1) dismissed the Fidelity Shareholders’ claims for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and negligence, and (2) entered judgment against the Fidelity Shareholders in

522 F.Supp.2d 959 (2007) BANK ONE, N.A., Plaintiff, v. ECHO ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, et. al., Defendants. No. 04-CV-318. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. November 26, 2007. *960 *961 *962 *963 Jo