Cases

BARKETT, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc: An en banc rehearing is warranted because the panel’s holding that the State of Florida can compel students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in violation of their personal beliefs directly contravenes precedent that has been firmly entrenched for over 65 years, since West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette held that

434 F.Supp.2d 1350 (2006) Cameron FRAZIER, through his mother and next friend, Christine Frazier, Plaintiff, v. Cynthia ALEXANDRE, et al., Defendants. No. 05-81142-CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. May 31, 2006. *1351 *1352 James Kellogg Green, West Palm Beach, FL, Randall C. Ma

Alexandre v Neptune (2023 NY Slip Op 01273) Alexandre v Neptune 2023 NY Slip Op 01273 Decided on March 15, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 26a0148p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ ALEXANDRE ANSARI, │ Plaintiff-Appe

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Freida Dweck and Accutime Watch Corp. appeal, and the defendant Hann Auto Trust separately appeals, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated January 5, 2006, as denied their respective cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the issue of liability and on the ground

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 17, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D22-0072 Lower Tribunal No. 21-9869 ________________ Florida International University Board of Trustees, Appella

834 So.2d 344 (2003) Luc Patrick ALEXANDRE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 4D01-976. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. January 8, 2003. *345 John H. Lipinski of the Law Office of John H. Lipinski, Miami, for appellant. Charlie Crist, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sue-Ellen Kenny, Ass

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Inc. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated January 14, 1988, which denied its motion to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Queens County pursuant to CPLR 510 (3). Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. Upon a motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) bas

On Motion to Dismiss. LAND, J. This is a suit to recover $5,000 damages for public defamation. The petition alleges that the plaintiffs are partners in a mercantile business carried on near Laplace, in the parish of St. John the Baptist; that defendant and his xiartners conducted a similar business in the immediate vicinity; that- in August, 1909, defendant’s storehouse was destroyed by fi

147 U.S. 72 13 S.Ct. 211 37 L.Ed. 84 ALEXANDRE et al.v.MACHAN et al. No. 61. January 3, 1893. Statement by Mr. Justice BROWN. This was a libel by the owners of the British barque Helen against the American steamship City of New York for a collision, whic

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AND DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE Re: Dkt. No. 41 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., United States District Judge Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion to strike filed by Defendants Macy’s, Inc., Macy’s West Stores, Inc., and Bloomingdale’s, Inc. Dkt. No. 41. The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without o

MEMORANDUM ** Kofi O.A. Kyei appeals the district court’s grant of the federal defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and its grant of Defendant Yamhill County’s motion for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We review the district court’s dismissals on t

Justice THOMAS, dissenting. The Court's opinion in this case elides an important distinction between construing a court filing and recharacterizing it. See Castro v. United States,540 U.S. 375, 386, 124 S.Ct. 786

Matter of Friends of Coecles Harbor, Inc. v Town Bd. of the Town of Shelter Is. (2025 NY Slip Op 02774) Matter of Friends of Coecles Harbor, Inc. v Town Bd. of the Town of Shelter Is. 2025 NY Slip Op 02774 Decided on May 7, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joseph R. Glownia, J.), entered January 15, 2014. The order denied the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the cross motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment on liability, i.e., on the issue of negligence and her claim that she sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). It is hereby order

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joseph R. Glownia, J.), entered January 15, 2014. The order denied the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the cross motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment on liability, i.e., on the issue of negligence and her claim that she sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). It is hereby order

Defendants met their prima facie burden of demonstrating that plaintiff did not suffer a permanent right shoulder injury by submitting the affirmation of an orthopedist who found that it demonstrated a full range of motion in every plane except for one, comparing plaintiffs values to normal (see Vega v MTA Bus Co., 96 AD3d 506, 507 [1st Dept 2012]; Spencer v Golden Eagle, Inc., 82 AD3d 589, 590-591 [1st Dept 2011]). The minor diminution

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 200 CA 14-00736 PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. ANGELA SIMS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER KUSHNOOD HAQ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. HAGELIN KENT LLC, BUFFALO (BRENT C. SEYMOUR OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. HOGAN WILLIG, PLLC, AMHERST (SCOTT M. DUQUIN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Defendants met their prima facie burden of demonstrating that plaintiff did not suffer a permanent right shoulder injury by submitting the affirmation of an orthopedist who found that it demonstrated a full range of motion in every plane except for one, comparing plaintiffs values to normal (see Vega v MTA Bus Co., 96 AD3d 506, 507 [1st Dept 2012]; Spencer v Golden Eagle, Inc., 82 AD3d 589, 590-591 [1st Dept 2011]). The minor diminution

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered August 3, 2011, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Assuming that defendants met their burden, the record presents triable issues of fact as to whether the injuries plaintiff sustained to his lumbar spine and to his cervical spine were serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Plainti