Cases

ORDER ORLANDO L. GARCIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court are Defendants’ motions (docket nos. 242, 244) seeking the dismissal of- Plaintiffs’ and Intervener’s claims against them. The Court has reviewed these motions, together with the arguments raised by the parties in their memoranda, responses, and replies (docket nos. 255, 260, 264, 274, 278), the record in this case, and the applicable

OPINION WINFREE, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION Following a fatal car crash, the estate and the surviving spouse of the car’s driver sued *862 the State of Alaska under separate negligence theories. The superior court granted the State summary

LENK, J. **201 This is the second time the defendants have appealed from the denial of their special motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' defamation claim, pursuant to the "anti-SLAPP" statute, G. L. c. 231, § 59H. 3 See Bla

Meyer, J.: This is an appeal from an order confirming the sales of various tracts of real estate of a decedent. At issue here is the validity of deeds to five tracts of land. Four deeds are involved; two of them to the executors themselves, one to a former brother-in-law of the executors, and one to a neighbor of the executors. Decedent’s will contained a provision concerning the sale of pro

OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge. The Landmark Medical Center (“Landmark”) is a 214-bed, general acute care community hospital located in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. Each year, it provides some 175,000 patients with a wide array of medical services ranging from ambulatory surgery and orthopedics to radiology and cancer treatment. In May 2011, Steward Health Care System, LLC submitt

15 So.3d 642 (2009) ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Appellant, v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Appellee. No. 1D08-0602. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. June 22, 2009. *644 Michael J. Glazer and John R. Beranek of Ausley & McMullen, Tallahassee, for Appellant. William E. Williams and Amy W. Schrader of GrayRob

OPINION YOCK, Judge. These consolidated civilian pay cases1 are before the Court on the defendant’s motion to dismiss one claim of certain plaintiffs on collateral estoppel grounds and on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ seven claims.2 For the reasons stated below, the defendant’s motion to dismiss one claim of 227

33 Md. App. 681 (1976) 366 A.2d 756 DOUGLAS L. ABBOTT v. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING BOARD, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY ET AL. No. 1146, September Term, 1975. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. Decided November 30, 1976. *682 The cause was argued before MARVIN H. SMITH and JOHN C. ELDRIDGE, Associate Judges of th

Cutter, J. (concurring) I agree that no excise can be imposed under 0. L. c. 65 with respect to the succession by any trust beneficiary to any part of the trust principal. I agree, upon limited grounds, that an excise under c. 65 may be imposed with respect to the succession by the trust bene-to their several interests in the aggregate trust income in excess of $20,000 annually,1 to be received betw

50 Cal.2d 438 (1958) RUTH ABBOTT et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Respondents. L. A. No. 24354. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. June 6, 1958. Kenneth Sperry for Appellants. *445 Ball, Hunt & Hart and Joseph A. Ball as Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellants. Roger Arnebergh, City Attor

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge. The above-named defendants were all convicted of violating section 461, title 18, United States Code (18 U.S.C.A. § 461) which reads as follows: "Loss of life by misconduct of officers of vessels; liability of corporation officer. Every captain, engineer, pilot, or other person employed on any steamboat or vessel, by whose misconduct, negligence, or inatt

King, j. Action to recover $55.70 for materials and labor furnished in putting a heating furnace into the defendant’s house under a contract therefor made by her husband, to whom the plaintiff gave credit supposing him to be the owner of the property. At the time the defendant was away from home in a hospital. The foundation of the action is the claim that the husband was the wife’s agent in the transaction. That was the sole iss

Curia. This plea is false in fact beyond all doubt, and there is some difficulty in saying whether it should be answered, or is demurrable. Notwithstanding the legal question which arises upon its face, we should suffer it to stand upon a very slight suggestion of its truth : none such is made. Its falsehood is conceded, and we will not suffer the plaintiff to be placed in danger of a trap, by requiring him to elect w

PUTNAM, Circuit Judge. This case involves only questions of fact. It grows out of a collision which occurred between the fishing vessel Horace B. Parker and the pilot-boat D. J. Lawlor about 20 minutes before 4 o’clock on a very cold morning in January. Each ., vessel was schooner rigged. The Parker was about 90 feet long, and the Lawlor about 73. The wind was from the northwest, and so strong that each vessel was under reefed s

BYERS, District Judge. This cause in personam was instituted to recover damages to the sand scow H.S. No. 60, said to have been caused by the negligent manner in which her cargo of gravel was discharged at the Bayonne Terminal on December 21, 1941. The vessel is 91 feet long by 31 feet, 6 inches in beam, and her depth is undisclosed. The uncontradicted testimony is that she was about 35 years old at the tim

706 N.W.2d 56 (2005) Cindy LEIDENFROST, Respondent, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., and Pennsylvania/AIG, claims administered by Claims Management, Inc., Relators, and Institute for Low Back & Neck Care, and Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Intervenors. No. A05-1666. Supreme Court of Minnesota. November 28, 2005. *57 Christopher E

COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LORI W. WILL LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER VICE CHANCELLOR 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734 January 13, 2025

People v Watkins (2021 NY Slip Op 07565) People v Watkins 2021 NY Slip Op 07565 Decided on December 29, 2021 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary L

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-2472 CARLOS A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA PUBLISHED Present: Judges Ortiz, Raphael and Senior Judge Annunziata Argued at Fairfax, Virginia IAN WESLEY BENNETT OPINION BY v. Record No. 0364-24-4 JUDGE STUART A. RAPHAEL