Cases

380 B.R. 131 (2007) In re MORTGAGE LENDERS NETWORK, USA, INC., Debtor. Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 07-10146 (PJW). Adversary No. 07-51683 (PJW). United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware. December 11, 2007.

Pfeifer, J., dissenting. {¶ 72} The Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law concluded that CompManagement’s “representation of employers’ interests in handling claims before the Industrial Commission on behalf of employers amounts to the unauthorized practice of law.” The board concluded that Comp-Management’s “negotiation and involvement with settling claims before the Industrial Commission o

336 F.Supp.2d 430 (2004) UNITED STATES of America ex rel George Bradford Hunt, Walter W. Gauger and Joseph Piacentile Plaintiffs, v. MERCK-MEDCO MANAGED CARE, L.L.C. and Medco Health Solutions, Inc. et al. Defendants. No. CIV.A.00-737, No. CIV.A.99-2332. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. September 23, 2004. *431

O’Connor, J. {¶ 1} On December 15, 2004, we determined that “[n]onlawyers who appear and practice in a representative capacity before the Industrial Commission and the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation in conformity to Industrial Commission Resolution No. R04-1-01 are not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.” Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc. (“CompManagement I ”), 104 Ohio St.3d 168, 2004-Ohio-6506,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SCUDERI, United States Magistrate Judge. Presently before the court is a motion filed by Defendants, Merck-Medco Managed Care, LLC, et al. (collectively, “the Medco Defendants”), seeking a court order requiring Plaintiffs, the United States Government, et al. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), to resubmit an amended initial disclosure statement in accordance wi

Per Curiam. The questions presented in this appeal are whether the two-issue rule set forth in Sites v. Haverstick, supra, is applicable to the circumstances of this case, and if so, whether the rule has any continued validity in this state. Since we answer the first question in the negative, we need not address the second. “The two-issue rule is, that error in the charge of the cou

QUILLIN, P. J. This case is before this court on remand from the Ohio Supreme Court (State v. Gillard (1988), 40 Ohio St. 3d 226) to independently review the appropriateness and proportionality of the imposed death penalty. On December 31, 1984, Timothy Hendricks invited several guests to his home at 213 Kennet Court, N.W. in Canton, Ohio, for a New Year's Eve party. Sometime during the

CORNELIA G. KENNEDY, Circuit Judge, concurring. I agree with Chief Judge Lively’s analysis and concur in his opinion. However, even if I were to conclude that requiring the use of the Holt series or another similar series constituted a burden on appellees’ free exercise rights, I would find the burden justified by a compelling state interest. Appellants have stated that a principal e

457 F.Supp.2d 246 (2006) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Osama AWADALLAH, Defendant. No. 01 CR. 1026(SAS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. August 2, 2006. Karl Metzner, Robin L. Baker, Brendan R. McGuire, Assistant United States Attorneys, United States Attorney's Office, *247 Southern District of New York, New York, New

787 F.Supp. 625 (1991) FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Manager of the FSLIC Resolution Fund, Plaintiff, v. Paul Sau-Ki CHENG, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 3-90-0353-H. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. July 1, 1991. *626 Jim D. Hamilton, Steven L. Weathered, Ross, Banks, May, Cron & Cavin

447 B.R. 475 (2009) In re CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC., et al., Debtors. No. 08-35653. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. February 12, 2009. Robin S. Abramowitz, Lazer, Aptheker, Rosella & Yedid, P.C., Melville, NY, for *476 Bond Circuit VIII Delaware Business Trust. Angela Sheffler Abreu, McCarter

827 F.2d 1058 102 A.L.R.Fed. 497, 56 USLW 2142, 41Ed. Law Rep. 473 Bob & Alice MOZERT, individually and as guardians ad litemfor Travis Mozert and Sundee L. Mozert, et al.,Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.HAWKINS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, (Hawkins County PublicSchools), (86- 6144/87-5024), Defendant-Appellant,Charles Smith, Commissioner of Education of the State ofTennessee (86-6179), Interven

MEMORANDUM OPINION KEVIN R. HUENNEKENS, Bankruptcy Judge. The debtors, Circuit City Stores, Inc., et al, (the “Debtors,” or “Circuit City”) filed these bankruptcy cases under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on November 10, 2008 (the “Petition Date”).1 The Debtors’ bankruptcy cases were consolidated for joint administration pursuant to Rule 1015(b) of the Fed

ORDER Upon consideration of Kevin A. Barnes, et al.’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

LINN, Circuit Judge. ORDER Kevin Barnes et al. (Barnes) notify the court that the United States Court of Federal Claims has requested that this court dismiss “the entire matter on appeal, without prejudice, and remand to this court for the purpose of addressing all outstanding matters.” We treat Barnes’ notification as a motion to remand. The United States has not responded. On