Cases

[Cite as Bruce v. Belucon, 2024-Ohio-139.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Sean E. Bruce, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 21AP-497 v. : (C.P.C. No. 16CV-5831) Belucon et al., :

250 P.3d 775 (2011) Bruce E. COX, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlyn D. COX, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. No. SCWC-29593. Supreme Court of Hawai'i. April 7, 2011. Reconsideration Denied May 2, 2011. *776 Steven L. Hartley and Seth R. Harris (Hartley & McGehee, LLC), on the application for petitioner/d

Cox, J. ¶1 Arthur West appeals the summary dismissal of his suit brought under the Public Records Act, ch. 42.56 RCW, against the Department of Licensing (Department). He contends that the Department violated the Public Records Act by failing to reasonably search for, identify, and produce records related to motor vehicle fuel tax payments to Indian Tribes. West also appeals the order denying his motion for reconsideration of th

552 F.3d 1238 (2008) Adolfo GALVEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Henry BRUCE, a Hillsborough County Sheriff's Officer in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellee. No. 08-10531. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. December 18, 2008. *1239 Christine M. Jalbert, Saint Petersburg, FL, for appellant. Christopher Eri

CLARK, Senior Circuit Judge: Defendants appeal their convictions for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine. ** We affirm the convictions of all of the defendants and affirm the sentence of defendant Noble C. Beasley. For reasons set forth below, we vacate the sentences of the

Opinion and Order Bruce Howe Hendricks, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on the motion of the Defendants Duke Energy, Inc.,1 and William “Randy” Gideon (collectively the “Duke Defendants”) for summary judgment (ECF No. 135) and on the motion of Defendants JW Byrd, Joyce C. Everett, Gary Streett, and the Darlington County Sheriffs Office (collectivel

OPINION ALARCON, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-appellant Cox Cable Tucson, Inc. (hereinafter Cox), the owner and licensed operator of a cable television system servicing Tucson, Arizona, sued defendants-appellees David Ladd (Register of Copyrights), the Copyright Office, and the United States of America (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Copyright Office) in the United States District Court for th

Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice. This is an interlocutory appeal from an order certifying a class action. Appellees Betty Jo Zearley and Herman Zearley successfully sought certification in circuit court of a variety of tort claims centered around medical malpractice arising out of the alleged improper surgical implantation, by Drs. James Arthur and Allan C. Gocio, of a product known as “Orthoblo

73 F.Supp.2d 751 (1999) UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner, v. John COX, Tax Director of BMC Software, Inc. and Subsidiaries, Respondent. No. Civ.A. H-98-2363. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. January 8, 1999. *752 Joseph A Pitzinger, III, Dept of Justice, Tax Division, Dallas, TX, for U.S. Kar

McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge: The underworld exploits of John Gotti and the courtroom legerdemain of his attorney, Bruce Cutler, are now the stuff of legend. Cutler’s last appearance on Gotti’s behalf was in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (I. Leo Glas-ser, Judge). Notwithstanding the court’s pre-trial admonition and orders to

HEMPHILL, District Judge. Motion for Production and Entry Upon Property, pursuant to Rule 34,1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeks favorable decision of the Court: To permit entry upon the duPont Brevard Plant, Polyester Building, Brevard, North Carolina, for the purpose of inspecting, measuring and photographing the property and the treatment coater machine contained

HEMPHILL, District Judge. As third party plaintiff E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company moves that the court reconsider its decision of August 24, 1965 in which the court struck Paragraph 12 of the third party complaint which set forth a claim for contribution against the third party defendant, Blaw-Knox Company, based upon the theory they were joint feasors, and in reliance on the law of North Carolina. D

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-23-00406-CV ________________ PRABHAT KUMAR AND POONAM GUPTA, Appellants V. T.D. COX HOMES LLC, Appellee ______________________________________________________

HEMPHILL, District Judge. Defendant Blaw-Knox seeks relief under Rule 42(b),1 Rules of Civil Procedure in support of its motion: That a separate trial of issues raised by the original Complaint be first held and concluded and that the trial on the issues raised by the third-party Complaint be continued until final adjudication of the issues as set forth in the original complai

HEMPHILL, District Judge. This case arises out of a personal injury accident which occurred in North Carolina resulting in the death of plaintiff’s intestate. The plaintiff, a resident of the State of South Carolina, sued the defendant and third-party plaintiff, E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, in the Greenville Division of this Court alleging certain acts of negligence. Thereafter, ex parte, motion was made and

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS GRITZNER, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(7) (“Rule 12(b)(7)”). A hearing was held on February 23, 2004. Plaintiff was represented by Michael Reck. Defendants were represented by Timothy DeJong of Portland, Oregon, and Brent Appel of Des Moin

HEMPHILL, District Judge. Motion by third party defendants Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation (called hereinafter Armstrong) and Aetna Casualty and Surety Corporation (Aetna), not parties to original action1, to dismiss them as third-party defendants, invites decision of this forum. Other motions, not joined in by movants here except motion as to venue2 have p

SULLIVAN, Judge (concurring in the result): I agree with Judge Cox that this case should be affirmed. However, on the search and seizure question, I rest my conclusion on the opinions of the various Justices of the Supreme Court in Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 702 (1983), and Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 102 S.Ct. 812, 70 L.Ed.2d 778 (1982). It is a ques

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. No. 94-4979. Alberto SAN PEDRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Kendall Coffey, United States Attorney; United States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, District Director, Robert M. Moschorak; United States Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Director, David L. Milhollan; an

242 N.J. Super. 293 (1990) 576 A.2d 907 RICHARD E. AVERY AND DONNA L. AVERY, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. ARTHUR E. ARMITAGE AGENCY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. JOANNE NEWELL AND BEVERLY NEWELL, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS CROSS-APPELLANTS, v. THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND THE BROWN AGENCY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. DOROTHY E. BOCK, PL