Cases

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-19-00039-CV ESTATE OF HENRY EZEKIEL “ZEKE” GROGAN, DECEASED On Appeal from the County Court at Law Harrison County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018-17,778-CCL Befor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STEPHANIE GROGAN-FULLER, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 1:17-cv-01933-EGS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and REPAINTEX COMPANY, et al. Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Stephanie Grogan-Fuller brings this action against the United States and two federal contractors, Repaintex Company (“Repaintex”) and Trademasters Service,

OPINION Holly Kirby, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Sharon G. Lee, C.J., and Cornelia A. Clark and Jeffrey S. Bivins, JJ., joined. This case involves an internecine conflict among siblings who were shareholders in a closely-held family corporation. The dispute resulted in dissolution of

Filed 11/16/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A164777 v. WILLIAM ERIK MONROE, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. VCR162572) Defendant and Appellant. In

MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN T. LANEY, III, Chief Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Motions for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”) filed by defendants McCalla Ray-mer, LLC (“McCalla”), SunTrust Bank and SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. (collectively “SunTrust”). McCalla filed its motion individually, while SunTrust Bank and Sun-Trust Mortgage filed a joint motion and also adopted the factual and legal arguments

Filed 3/24/22; Certified for Publication 4/13/22 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, A162591 v. JUAN PANTOJA, (Solano County Super. C

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge: Appellants challenge the district court’s dismissal of their complaint filed against the government under the Suits in Admiralty Act (“SIAA”), 46 U.S.C. §§ 741 et seq., and the Public Vessels Act (“PVA”), 46 U.S.C. §§ 781 et seq. The issue is whether and under what circumstances these statutes subject the feder

704 F.Supp. 695 (1989) Robert S. BOWMAN, Jr. v. PAN AMERICAN WORLD SERVICES, INC., et al. Civ. A. No. 87-5982. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. February 8, 1989. Samanie, Barnes & Allen, Michael J. Samanie, David B. Allen, Trial Atty., Houma, La., for plaintiff. Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, Edward J. Koehl, Jr.,

FOURTH DIVISION DILLARD, P. J., MERCIER and MARKLE, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules June 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT H. JACOBVITZ, Bankruptcy Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court following a final, evidentiary hearing on the merits of the United States Trustee’s Amended Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(a) or Alternatively Convert to a Chapter 11 Proceeding (“UST’s Motion to Dismiss or Convert”— Docket No. 69) held December 5, 2012.1 Ronald

Per Curiam. Appellants assert in their first proposition of law that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ of prohibition because the dismissal of the previous common pleas court action barred Ingle’s subsequent declaratory judgment action in probate court based on res judicata. In order to be entitled to a writ of prohibition, appellants must establish (1) that the probate court a

MEMORANDUM OPINION CATHERINE R. ARON, Bankruptcy Judge. THIS MATTER came before the Court for trial on October 9, 2014, after due and proper notice, upon the Complaint to Determine Dischargeability of a Debt (the “Complaint”) filed by Cabarrus County and the Cabarrus County Department of Social Services, now the Department of Human Services (the “County”). Appearing before the Court was Richard

OPINION AND ORDER SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge: I. INTRODUCTION In a companion Opinion issued today, I held that the damages model submitted by plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Roger Noll, must be excluded as unreliable under Daubert.1 The purpose of this Opinion (the “Certification Opinion”) is to address whether the lit

CORRECTED OPINION AND ORDER SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION1 These cases challenge restraints in the market for baseball and hockey broadcasting. The essence of plaintiffs’ argument is that the leágues — Major League Baseball (“MLB”) and the National Hockey League (“NHL”) — have conspired with regional sports networks (“RSNs”),

ORDER GRANTING THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Stephani W. Humrickhouse, United States Bankruptcy Judge The matters before the court in this adversary proceeding are the cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Todd Perry Putnam (the “debtor”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). The debtor initiated this adversary proceeding on October 29, 2012, seeking a determination

Opinion KRIEGLER, J. This case involves the placement preferences set forth in the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.).1 At issue is whether the dependency court properly applied the ICWA in finding that the foster parents of an Indian child failed to prove good cause to deviate from the ICWA’s adoptive placement preferences. A 1

307 B.R. 800 (2004) In re Peter J. CASINI, Debtor. Peter J. Casini, Debtor/Plaintiff, v. Timothy Graustein, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 97-39420 RTL, Adversary No. 01-5611. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey. March 31, 2004. *801 *802 *803

Opinion CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J. A jury found defendant Huber Joel Mendoza guilty of the first degree premeditated murders of Alicia Martinez, Carlos Lopez, and Carmillo (Camarino) Chavez (Pen. Code, § 187), 1 and found multiple-murder special-circumstance allegations to be true (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)),

906 So.2d 64 (2004) Michael William PETERS, Sr., Appellant, v. Catherine Lynne PETERS, Appellee. No. 2003-CA-01907-COA. Court of Appeals of Mississippi. December 7, 2004. *66 Claire Sekul Hornsby, William E. Tisdale, Biloxi, attorneys for appellant. Dean Holleman, Gulfport, attorney for appellee. Before BRIDGES, P.J

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 19.] THE STATE EX REL. LIPINSKI ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, PROBATE DIVISION, ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Lipinski v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Probate Div., 1995-Ohio-96.] Prohibition to prevent probate court from exercising jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action—Writ denied, when. (No. 95-896—Submit