Cases

340 F.Supp.2d 722 (2004) Sammy HENDERSON, Individually and on Behalf of all the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Wanda Henderson, Deceased Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Flatland Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Inc. et al. Defendant No. CIV.A.2:04 CV 211. United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Delta Division. October 4, 2004. *723

This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter 2024 UT 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH JOHN BLEAZARD, an individual, MARK BLEAZARD, an individual, and SIX MILE RANCH COMPANY, a Utah Corporation, Appellees, v. CITY OF ERDA and DEIDRE M. HENDERSON, in her Official Capacity

969 A.2d 1145 (2009) 407 N.J. Super. 108 Robert SWAN and Lois Swan, h/w, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARDWALK REGENCY CORPORATION, d/b/a Caesar's Atlantic City, and Harrah's Entertainment, d/b/a Caesar's Entertainment, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.[1] No. A-6229-07T1 Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Submitted March 11, 2009.

OPINION Marc W. Brown, Justice. The trial court dismissed appellant Joe E. Henderson’s suit for want of prosecution after it' had been pending for over three years with virtually no activity and Henderson failed to appear for trial. Henderson filed a motion to reinstate, arguing that his counsel overlooked the trial setting. That motion was overruled by ope

360 F.Supp.2d 582 (2005) SWAN CONSULTANTS, INC. and William S. Swan, Plaintiffs, v. TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. No. 03Civ.7905JES. United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 17, 2005. *583 *584 The Dweck Law Firm, LLP, New York, New York, Jack S. Dweck, for Plaintif

200 Md. 420 (1952) 90 A.2d 690 SWAN v. STATE [No. 203, October Term, 1951.] Court of Appeals of Maryland. Decided July 15, 1952. *423 The cause was argued before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ. Harold Buchman, with whom were I. Duke Avnet and Mitch

290 F.Supp.2d 604 (1994) Jacqueline MONSANTO-SWAN, Appellant, v. GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, Appellee. Nos. D.C.CRIM 92-211, T.C. CRIM F272-91. District Court, Virgin Islands, Appellate Division, D. St. Thomas and St. John. May 2, 1994. Rhys Hodge, St. Thomas, VI, for Appellant. Darlene Grant, Asst. Atty. General, V.I. Department of Justice, St. Thomas,

463 So.2d 196 (1985) Robert Dale HENDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 63094. Supreme Court of Florida. January 10, 1985. Rehearing Denied February 28, 1985. *198 James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Brynn Newton, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen

133 F.2d 515 (1943) HENDERSON, Price Adm'r, v. BURD et al. No. 143. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. February 9, 1943. *516 Henry Lichtig, of New York City (David M. Berger, of New York City, of counsel), for appellants. David Ginsburg, Gen. Counsel, and Brunson MacChesney, Asst. Gen. Counsel, both of Washington,

Woods, J., delivered the opinion of the court. 1. The transfer of the mortgage made by Pettibone to Swan, and its acceptance by Mrs. Barkwell, did not operate to pay the debt thereby secured. We think it clear that this mortgage security was available to Mrs. Barkwell for the payment of the debt due her. *915We do not agree that, by

Bartch, J., after a statement of the case as above,’ delivered the opinion of the court: The most important question to be' determined is whether the office of chief of police is abolished by the Revised Statutes of 1898. Counsel for the appellant maintain that there was no intention on the part of the legislature, in enacting these statutes, to abolish the office; that the same is still in existence; and that

44 F.2d 24 (1930) GENERAL MOTORS CO. v. SWAN CARBURETOR CO.[*] No. 5190. Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. June 12, 1930. On Motion for Rehearing November 5, 1930. J. L. Stackpole, of Boston, Mass. (Frederick P. Fish and H. L. Kirkpatrick, both of Boston, Mass., and White, Cannon & Spieth, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for

42 F.2d 452 (1927) SWAN CARBURETOR CO. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION. No. 14169. District Court, N. D. Ohio, E. D. September 28, 1927. F. O. Richey, of Cleveland, Ohio, Joseph H. Milans, of Washington, D. C., and Henderson, Quail, Siddall & Morgan, of Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff. Frederick P. Fish and J. L. Stackpole, both of Boston, Mass., and White,

Wright, J. 1. Jurisdiction: venue: non-resident. — Several questions were raised in the court below, but the defendants, by their exceptions, saved but two of them. It is true, they ex- «... cepted to the overruling oi their motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, but as no such motion is found in the record, the most favorable view to them is, that such ruling relates to the action of the court in sus

Deemer, J. Plaintiffs are residents, taxpayers, and abutting owners of. property in defendant city, which streets the said city is proposing to pave. Defendants are the city, its mayor, the members of the city council, and the city treasurer. The action is to enjoin defendants from entering into a contract for the pavement of certain streets in said city and from talcing any other steps looking toward the pavement of the streets

KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge: This litigation involves a dispute between two securities dealers arising out of the purchase and sale of industrial development bonds. The issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the appellant leave to amend its complaint. The amendment apparently was intended to defea

4 Utah 2d 277 (1956) 293 P.2d 682 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF WILDA GAIL SWAN, DECEASED. THEO SWAN HENDEE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. WALKER BANK & TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTOR OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF WILDA GAIL SWAN, DECEASED; GRANT MACFARLANE, DANIEL KOSTOPULOS AND ADA BRIDGE, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. No. 8246. Supreme Court of Utah.

PRATT J. The question submitted to me at this time arises upon demurrers, filed by different dfT fendants to plaintiff’s petition ; and the decision is now wholly upon this question, no other pleadings being before me at this time, and no questions than those arising upon the petition having been discussed by counsel or considered by me. The petition was filed on the 14th of August, 1895, by John Swan, as

Coopeb, J., delivered the opinion of the court. A motion to dismiss a bill for want of equity on its face only lies in those cases in which the court may mero■ motu dismiss it, and that is when admitting all the facts stated in the bill, whether well or defectively pleaded, then complainant is entitled to no relief. It does not lié where a case proper for equitable relief appears in the face of the bill wh

Tukley, J. delivered the opinion of the court. Two objections are taken by the defendants to the relief asked by complainants in this case. *2491st. It is said there is such a misjoinder of parties as vitiates the bill upon demurrer. The bill charges that Andrew Henderson, the testator of complainant Henderson, died about the 21st da