Cases

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: JASON PHILIP POWELL, No. 22-60052 Debtor, BAP No. 22-1014 ------------------------------ TICO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OPINION INC., Appellant, v. WILLIAM ALBERT VAN METER, Chapter 13 Trustee; MELISSA HOOVEN, FKA Melissa Powell; JASON PHILIP

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. Nos. 30, 35] CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO, District Judge. On October 6, 2011, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). [Doc. *1204No. 29.] On October 13, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismis

Thomas C. Powell and Joyce R. Powell, Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, RespondentPowell v. CommissionerDocket Nos. 19726-90, 19727-90United States Tax Court

Johnson, J. The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in Superior Court (Contas, J.) of violating RSA 647:1, I, by selling a Massachusetts Megabucks ticket to another person. Defendant appeals the conviction, arguing that, properly interpreted, this statute does not apply to his conduct. We agree and therefore reverse. The material facts of this case are not in dispute. Defendant is a 63-year-old

Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Millette, Mims, McClanahan, and Powell, JJ., and Lacy, S.J. PS BUSINESS PARKS, L.P. OPINION BY v. Record No. 131282 JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. APRIL 17, 2014 DEUTSCH & GILDEN, INC., ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Robert J. Smith, Judge In this appeal we consider two issues related to the garnishment of

ZIEGLER, P. J., Powell was taken into custody about 7:15 p.m. on June 26, 1973, for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence. Prosecutor did not have probable cause to believe that Powell had operated a motor vehicle while under the influence in his presence. At the station, Powell refused prosecutor’s request that Powell submit to a chemical test. At about 9 p.m., Powell was formally charged and arraigned bef

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER KIM R. GIBSON, District Judge. Now before the Court is Plaintiff Highland Tank and Manufacturing Company’s Motion to Compel Compliance with this Court’s June 1, 2006, Order (Document No. 43). Plaintiff and Defendant PS International Inc. have *242also filed memoranda of law setting forth their positions as to

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GIBSON, District Judge. This case comes before the Court on PS International, Inc.’s (hereinafter “Defendant” or “PSI”) Motion for Protective Order (Document No. 11) and Motion to Quash Subpoenas, (Document No. 17-1) or, in the alterna*376tive for Protective Order (Document No. 17-2). In consideration of the

188 Pa. Superior Ct. 57 (1958) Powell v. Wandel, Appellant. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Argued September 11, 1958. November 14, 1958. *58 Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ. *59 Joseph F. McVeigh, with him Joseph C. Mansfield,

381 Pa. 405 (1955) Powell v. Shepard, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued March 21, 1955. April 18, 1955. *406 Before STERN, C.J., STEARNE, JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ. Edward Friedman, Deputy Attorney General, with him Colbert C. McClain, Special Counsel, and Herbert B. Cohe

Brown, Jr., P. J., The trial of this case was commenced before judge and jury and when all the evidence had been presented by the parties, it was stipulated at bar that the jury be discharged from further consideration of the case, and that the evidence presented before the judge and jury be considered as being presented to the trial judge without a jury and so determined under the rules. Accordingly, the action being in assumpsi

402 Pa. 73 (1960) Scott, Appellant, v. C.E. Powell Coal Company. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued September 30, 1960. December 1, 1960. Before JONES, C.J., BELL, MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, BOK and EAGEN, JJ. Fremont J. McKenrick, with him McKenrick and McKenrick, for appellant. Robert W. Smith, Jr., with him Smith, Best and Ho

Gawthrop, P. J., In this action in assumpsit a board of arbitrators, appointed and acting under the Act of June 16, 1836, P. L. 715, as *161amended, 5 PS §30 if., and the rules of this court, after hearing made and filed an award in favor of plaintiff against defendants Alfred EL Powell, Jr., Eugene Powell and Harold P. Powell, individually and as copartners trading as Po

Braham, P. J., Upon permissive redemption of real estate which has been sold to the county at treasurer’s sale and held by the county until after the period of redemption has expired, is *582the former owner entitled to rents accruing after the period of redemption and collected by the county? The pending action is brought in assumpsit by the former owner against the Coun

¶1 Lau, J. Christopher Piris appeals the trial court’s dismissal on summary judgment of his legal malpractice suit against his former attorneys and King County arising from his underlying criminal case. Piris contends the trial court erred when it determined that he failed to allege and prove his innocence of first degree rape of a child, a necessary requirement to maintain his legal malpractice lawsuit. We concl

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA PERFORMANCE STEEL, INC., A No. 79569 NEVADA CORPORATION, Appellant, vs. WALLNER TOOLING/EX PAC, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Res • ondent. PERFORMANCE STEEL, INC., A No: 79993 NEVADA CORPORATION, Appellant, FILE vs. JUN 1 2021 WALLNER TOMANG/EXPAC, INC., A

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA PERFORMANCE STEEL, INC., A No. 79569 NEVADA CORPORATION, Appellant, vs. WALLNER TOOLING/EX PAC, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Res • ondent. PERFORMANCE STEEL, INC., A No: 79993 NEVADA CORPORATION, Appellant, FILE vs. JUN 1 2021 WALLNER TOMANG/EXPAC, INC., A

*37¶1 Vernon Braaten spent his career as a pipe fitter at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, where he was often exposed to asbestos. His job involved tearing into, removing, and replacing asbestos insulation used in and on the pumps, valves, and turbines he maintained. He sued the machine manufacturers, claiming that they should have warned about the danger of asbestos inhalation involved with using the

¶1 Schindler, J. During the one-year redemption period under chapter 6.23 RCW, a licensed real estate broker may list property sold at a sheriff’s sale. If the property is not redeemed by the judgment debtor at the end of the one-year period, the purchaser at the sheriff’s sale shall accept the highest qualifying offer as defined under RCW 6.23.120(1). On cross motions for summary judgment,

Opinion by Senior Judge Blatt, Charles Montione (petitioner) petitions for review of the denial of administrative relief from an order of the Board of Probation and Parole (Board) recommitting him to prison as a technical parole violator. We shall affirm. The petitioner was originally incarcerated as a result of his convictions for robbery and burglary. He was paroled from the sentences on Octob