Cases

471 F.2d 1051 153 U.S.App.D.C. 83 UNITED STATES of Americav.Arthur L. MARSHALL, Appellant. No. 23436. United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit. Argued May 25, 1970.Decided Oct. 20, 1972. Mr. William J. Garber, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this Court), wit

Opinion issued December 29, 2011 In The Court of Appeals

PER CURIAM. Thomas Douglas Arthur appeals from the Montgomery Circuit Court's dismissal of his complaint seeking a judgment declaring §§ 15-18-82 and -82.1, Ala. Code 1975, unconstitutional, which he contends he brought pursuant to § 6-6-220 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, and seeking injunctive relief. In that action, Arthur sought to have that court (1) declare that §§ 15-18-82 and -82.1, Ala. Code 1975, which deal with execution of conv

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: *368 Danny Mills and Dennis Chartier, the defendants-appellants, were each mayors of the City of Naples, Texas, at times when the plaintiff was employed by the City. Arthur Mitchell, the plaintiff-appellee, is an African-American man who claims that the defenda

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Daniel D. Crabtree, United States District Judge This matter comes before the court on Judgment^Creditor Kai Gruber’s Motion to Remand. Doc. 16. Garnishees United States Aircraft Insurance Group (“USAIG”) and United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc. have filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Remand. Doc. 19. And, Judgment-Creditor Kai Gruber has filed a Reply. Doc. 20. A

MEMORANDUM KEVIN H. SHARP, District Judge. This is a putative class action brought by current and former Student Athletes who played National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) football (at the Football Bowl Subdivision “FBS” level) or Division I college basketball. Named as Defendants are a host of conferences, networks, and licensors who allegedly profited from the broadcast and use of tho

388 F.Supp.2d 536 (2005) Ellen C. MARSHALL, Plaintiff, v. Ronald FENSTERMACHER, High Swartz Roberts and Seidel, Emma Dawson, David Burgess, Hetherington & Company, Defendants. No. Civ.A. 04-3477. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. August 23, 2005. *537 *538

MEMORANDUM ** Dexter Allan Marshall appeals the 71-month sentence imposed following his *604guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered in

OPINION ON REHEARING ** MICHAEL MASSENGALE, Justice. Gary Pitts and Pitts & Collard, LLP sued Arthur L. Schechter, Arthur L. Schechter, P.C. d/b/a Schechter & Associates, Schechter & Marshall, L.L.P., and Schechter, McElwee & Shaffer, L.L.P. for breach of contract. The contract claim was based upon an allegation that the Schechter parties failed to pay

657 S.E.2d 71 (2008) Robert G. MARSHALL, et al. v. NORTHERN VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, et al. Board of Supervisors of Loudoun County v. Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, et al. Record Nos. 071959, 071979. Supreme Court of Virginia. February 29, 2008. *73 Wesley G. Russell, Jr., Richmond (Patrick M. M

Opinion issued February 27, 2025 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-22-00573-CV ——————————— PRESTON MARSHALL, INDIVIDUALLY AND RUSK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., Appellants V. MAR

[Cite as Marshall v. Marshall, 2021-Ohio-2003.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Christopher L. Marshall, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 20AP-284 v. : (C.P.C. No. 07DR-2236) Stephanie N. Marshall,

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-21-00442-CV Eureka Holdings Acquisitions, L.P., Appellant v. Marshall Apartments, LLC, Appellee FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, NO. D-1-GN-16-005630, THE HONORABLE MAYA GUERRA GAMBLE, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION

941 F.Supp. 216 (1996) Joey BREWER, Petitioner, v. Clifford MARSHALL, Sheriff, Norfolk County, Respondent. Civil Action No. 93-12635-PBS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. August 13, 1996. *217 William A. Hahn, Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Neil S. Tassel, Ellyn H. Lazar, Attorney General's Office, Boston, MA,

CRAIG, Judge. The salient issue in this case is whether an application for parole filed more than six months before the minimum parole eligibility date is premature and a nullity, thus relieving the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole from the duty of reviewing that particular application. This case is within the original jurisdiction of this court and involves William L. Marshall’s petition for re

PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Bird v. Maass (A64583), 104 Or App 271, 800 P2d 792 (1990).

DUHÉ, Circuit Judge. The defendants raise a litany of issues to challenge their convictions for mail fraud and conspiracy. They contend that the district court improperly denied their motion for change of venue and erred in fourteen different evidentiary rulings. They also argue that the court erred by denying their motion for mistrial based on a comment by the judge and by re

Corrigan, J. *324 Here we consider whether the County of Los Angeles can impose a documentary transfer tax on a written instrument that transfers beneficial ownership of real property from one person to two others. We hold that the tax may be imposed if the document reflects a sale: that i

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge: Once again, we are asked to review the liquidation proceedings involving Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“BLMIS”) — the investment enterprise created by Bernard L. Madoff to effect his now-infamous Ponzi scheme. These consolidated appeals arise out of a permanent injunction entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern

AMUNDSON, Justice. [¶ 1.] Arthur Steiner, Thomas Steiner, Donna Allen, and James Pitzl (Landowners) sued Marshall County (County), seeking to enjoin County from obstructing the flow of water through County Highway 5 (Fort Road). Marshall-Brown Crow Creek Landowners Association, Inc. (Intervenor) filed a motion to intervene which was granted. Landowners and County eventually entered into a consent judgment which was approved