Cases

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 15-1405 Filed August 31, 2016 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ANDREW J. CUMMER AND KITTY H. CUMMER Upon the Petition of ANDREW J. CUMMER, Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning KITTY H. CUMMER, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Michael J. Shubatt, Judge.

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of September 2006 by Plaintiffs in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: *6"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th

632 S.E.2d 563 (2006) Linda P. CALHOUN, M.D.; Mark T. Murphy, M.D.; Hemantkumar Patel, M.D.; Praful N. Patel, M.D.; and J. Robinson Harper, Jr., M.D., Plaintiffs, v. WHA MEDICAL CLINIC, PLLC, Defendant. No. COA05-1345. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. August 1, 2006. Ward and Smith, P.A., by Jenna Fruechtenicht Butler and John M. Martin, Wilmington, for plaintiff

644 S.E.2d 5 (2007) Linda P. CALHOUN, M.D.; Mark T. Murphy, M.D.; Hemantkumar Patel, M.D.; Praful N. Patel, M.D.; and J. Robinson Harper, Jr., M.D. v. WHA MEDICAL CLINIC, PLLC. No. 479P06. Supreme Court of North Carolina. March 8, 2007. John M. Martin, Greenville, Matthew W. Sawchak, Raleigh, for Calhoun, et al. Noah H. Huffstetler, III, Catharine W. Cummer,

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC2022-1123 ____________ IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.191. March 13, 2025 PER CURIAM. The Court, on its own motion, amends Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.191 (Speedy Trial) and 3.134 (Time for Filing Formal Charges).1 The Court previously held oral argument on a prior ve

133 F.Supp.2d 959 (2001) Dale GARRISH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, International Union ("UAW"), et al., Defendants. Civil No. 00-40291. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. March 7, 2001. *960 *961

577 F.Supp. 176 (1983) John J. CAVANAGH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Alex K. BROCK, et al., Defendants. No. 82-545-CIV-5. United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Raleigh Division. September 22, 1983. *177 *178 Hamilton C. Horton, Jr., Winston-Salem, N.C. (Horton, Hendrick & Cummer, W

Frye, Judge. I. Introduction {¶ 1} The model of a lawyer newly called to the bar joining a firm, gaining experience, advancing to partnership, and then enjoying tenure until retirement is — if it ever truly existed — observed less in recent years. In its place are frequent lateral moves by lawyers both within the private bar and in and out of government or business. While the movement of senior-level lawyers wi

GOODRICH, Circuit Judge. This case concerns the Pennsylvania nonresident motorist statute and the United States statutes on venue. The plaintiff, an Iowa resident, sued the defendants, residents of North Carolina, for damages resulting from a motor vehicle accident which occurred in Pennsylvania. Service was made following the provisions of the Pennsylvania nonresident motorist

*588MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Resolving All Class Certification Issues and Related Objections MARIANA R. PFAELZER, District Judge. INTRODUCTION This is a putative securities class action involving Countrywide Financial Corporation (“Countrywide Financial”) and some of its affiliated companies (collectively, “Countrywide”).

304 F.Supp. 1096 (1968) NORTE & COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. R. L. HUFFINES, Jr., Victor Muscat, L. F. Serrick, Alfred O'Gara, Edward Krock and Defiance Industries, Inc., Defendants. No. 62 Civ. 3390. United States District Court S. D. New York. May 15, 1968. *1097 Milton Paulson, New York City, for plaintiff. Saxe, Bacon &a;

The relator, The Manila Electric Railroad and Lighting Corporation, a foreign corporation, seeks in this certiorari proceeding (Tax Law, section 199) to annul the determination of the state tax commission imposing upon it a license fee under the provisions of section 181 and a franchise tax under the provisions of section 182 of the Tax Law, based on business for the year ending October 31, 1916. The Appellate Division, upon the appeal of the relator, confir

80 F.Supp. 989 (1948) UNITED STATES v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. et al. United states District Court S. D. New York. October 8, 1948. *990 *991 *992 John F. X. McGohey, U. S. Atty., of New York City, Herbert A. Berman, Bartholomew Diggins and Malcolm Hoffmann, Sp. Asst. to the A

ACCEPTED 12-11-00303-cv TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 3/13/2015 4:46:09 PM

Shackleford, J., J., (after stating the facts as above.) —Owing to the order in which the different assignments of errors are argued and the manner in which they are presented in the several briefs filed by the plaintiff in error, the defendant in the court below, we have found it difficult to determine just what asignments of error are insisted *333upon and what