Cases

PER CURIAM. The district court’s judgment of April 2, 1976, dismissed appellants’ complaint as against appellees Taylor and Local 481 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (the Union) for failure to join indispensable parties, and granted summary judgment in favor of appellees Butler, Carter, and the Indianapolis Plan for Equal Employment, Inc. (the Plan). The c

Argued January 25, 1937. On a clear day in January, 1935, defendant Albert was driving his truck on the Philadelphia pike to Reading. At about 3:15 P. M., when five or six miles from his destination, the rear axle broke. At that point the road is straight for a considerable distance; it is a concrete highway twenty feet wide, with 8 to 12 foot berms. Albert, being alone on the truck, went to Reading to seek aid, leaving the truck standing where it had stopped on the easterly side of the road,

Order affirmed, with costs to the defendant Markert. Appeal from judgment dismissed. Memorandum. We find that the verdict was excessive and also that the finding of the jury that defendant Markert was guilty of negligence is against the weight of the evidence. The order has become unconditional by failure of plaintiff to give stipulation. We affirm the order in its unconditional form. All concur. (The order granted a new trial unless plaintiff stipulated a

Judgment and order reversed on the facts and new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, on the ground that the finding of the jury that the defendant Markert was guilty of negligence was against the weight of the evidence. All concur. (The judgment ** was for damages in an automobile negligence case. The order denied a motion for a new trial on the minutes.) Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgcomb, Thompson and Lewis, JJ.

OPINION BY WECHT, J.: K.H. through his parents, H.S. and E.H., 1 and his parents individually (collectively, “Appellants”), appeal the trial court’s November 27, 2013, and February 19, 2014 orders granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees Shakthi Kumar, M.D.; Yvonne Siwek, M.D.; Lancaster Pe

370 Pa. 35 (1952) Baederwood, Inc. v. Moyer, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued January 8, 1952. March 24, 1952. *36 Before DREW, C.J., STERN, STEARNE, BELL, CHIDSEY and MUSMANNO, JJ. *37 Albert Smith Faught, with him Fleer & Miller, for appellants. <

Per Curiam. The decree appealed from is affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Howell. For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Minturn, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Congdon, Sullivan — 12. For reversal — None.

O’Donnell, J., dissenting. {¶ 27} We are asked here to determine whether the commission’s award for total loss of sight of an eye is supported by “some evidence.” Because the commission’s decision here is not supported by any evidence establishing a 100 percent loss of vision in the claimant’s left eye, it should be reversed. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion to the contrary.

Cook, J., dissenting. As the majority opinion suggests, the interplay between Ohio’s Certificate of Title Act, R.C. 4505.01 et seq. (“CTA”) and the entrustment *521provisions of Ohio’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code (the “Code”), specifically R.C. 1302.44, is complex. Commentators have noted a “lack of consistency” in an “astounding array of cases” on this

The factual situation and the principles of law applicable to the merits of this case are fully set forth in the opinion on the first appeal, reported in 325 Pa. 357, when this Court ordered a new trial. Clarifying evidence was to be presented as to whether appellant's negligence was concurrent or wholly independent; that is, whether or not the co-defendant Moyer could have avoided the injury had he exercised reasonable care after sighting appellant's truck,

*653OPINION LASTER, Vice Chancellor. In September 2010, Occam Networks, Inc. (“Occam” or the “Company”) announced an agreement and plan of merger with Calix, Inc. (the “Merger Agreement”). The Merger Agreement called for Calix to acquire Occam through a merger in which each share of Occam common stock would be converted into the right to receive 0.292

13 Cal.App.4th 1718 (1993) 17 Cal. Rptr.2d 282 In re JOSHUA H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LINDA H., Defendant and Appellant. LINDA H., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent; FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. Docket Nos. F017994, F

This was an action commenced in the trial court by Harry H. Jones, as Receiver of Long Auto Sales Company, against the appellee, Lathrop-Moyer Company, to recover damages to the Long Auto Sales Company by reason of the cancellation of a contract between the Long Auto Sales Company and the appellee. The appellee, Lathrop-Moyer Company, was a distributor of "Oldsmobiles" in the city of Indianapolis, and it made a contract with the Long Auto Sales Company to furnish said company "Oldsmobi

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 92 Ohio St.3d 513.] SATURN OF KINGS AUTOMALL, INC. ET AL., APPELLANTS AND CROSS- APPELLEES, v. MIKE ALBERT LEASING, INC., APPELLEE AND CROSS- APPELLANT. [Cite as Saturn of Kings Automall, Inc. v. Mike Albert Leasing, Inc., 2001-Ohio-1274.] Motor vehicles—Certificate of motor vehicle title—Evidence of ownership—Harm to leased vehicl

227 Cal.App.3d 825 (1991) 278 Cal. Rptr. 185 In re REBECCA H. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CLINTON H., Objector and Appellant. Docket Nos. F012892, F012896, F013581, F013555. Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District. February 14, 1991.

405 Pa. Superior Ct. 392 (1991) 592 A.2d 720 Philip COHEN, Executor of the Estate of Sara Cohen, Deceased, Appellee, v. ALBERT EINSTEIN MEDICAL CENTER, NORTHERN DIVISION, Appellant. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Argued January 8, 1991. Filed June 11, 1991. *397 David J. Griffith, Philadelphia, for appell

*1721Opinion DIBIASO, J. Linda H. challenges a disposition order in a juvenile dependency matter involving her young son Joshua H. Infant Joshua suffered severe physical abuse at the hands of his mother’s boyfriend; the mother knew her boyfriend was abusing her son. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 300, subd. (e).) Based on these

Moser, J., In the opinion filed by Judge Stewart in the case of Krajnetz v. Milwaukee Mechanics’ Ins. Co., tried in Northampton County and reported in 27 Dist. R. 362, it is said: “The plaintiff filed a statement, setting forth that she owned a certain frame dwelling-house which was insured by the defendant company against loss by fire to an amount exceed*66ing $20

366 N.W.2d 417 (1985) 219 Neb. 765 Margaret CHARLEY, Personal Representative of the Estate of Albert Charley, Appellant, v. FARMERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEBRASKA, Appellee. No. 84-013. Supreme Court of Nebraska. April 26, 1985. *418 George H. Moyer, Jr., of Moyer, Moyer, Egley & Fullner, Madison

Opinion DIBIASO, J. Objector Clinton H. (the father) challenges juvenile dependency orders which denied him reunification services with his minor children (Welf. & Inst. Code1 § 361.5) and terminated his parental rights (§ 366.26). The critical issues are the meaning of, and the relationship among, subdivisions (a), (b)(2) and (c) of section 361.5, and whether the father was ent