Cases

Ellington, Chief Judge. The Fulton County Superior Court entered judgment confirming an arbitration award, which required SCSJ Enterprises, Inc., and Shandton Williams (collectively, SCSJ) to pay approximately $800,000 to Hansen & Hansen Enterprises, Inc., and Juden Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, Hansen). SCSJ appeals this ruling, arguing that the trial court erred in returning the case to arbitration; the trial court er

682 S.E.2d 652 (2009) 299 Ga. App. 469 HANSEN & HANSEN ENTERPRISES, INC. et al. v. SCSJ ENTERPRISES, INC. et al. No. A09A0600. Court of Appeals of Georgia. July 10, 2009. Reconsideration Denied July 30, 2009. *654 Krevolin & Horst, Jeffrey D. Horst, David A. Sirna, Atlanta, for App

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 23-704C (Filed: December 11, 2024) FOR PUBLICATION ************************************* ORVILLE NIX, JR., * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNIT

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3122 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Christian Hansen llllllll

Blackwell, Judge. Hunter Bennett sued B-T Two, Inc., which does business as Buffalo’s Café, to recover damages for injuries that he sustained at the hands of a Buffalo’s employee and another unidentified person, who together assaulted Bennett at a party. Bennett contends that Buffalo’s is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the tort of its employee, and Bennett also claims that Buffalo’s is liable for its ow

ORDER WILLIAM H. STEELE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff Cornelius Smith. (Doc. 9). The parties have filed briefs and evidentia-ry materials in support of their respective positions, (Docs. 10,19, 20), and the motion is ripe for resolution. After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the motion is due to be denied.

119 P.3d 1005 (2005) Karl HANSEN, Appellant, v. Mada HANSEN, Appellee. No. S-11053. Supreme Court of Alaska. September 2, 2005. *1008 G.R. Eschbacher, Anchorage, for Appellant. Lawrence A. Pederson, Paul J. Nangle & Associates, Anchorage, for Appellee. Before: BRYNER, Chief Justice, MATTHEWS, EASTAUGH, FABE, and

206 B.R. 213 (1997) In re ACI SUNBOW, LLC, Debtor. UNITED ENTERPRISES, LTD., Movant, v. ACI SUNBOW, LLC, Respondent. Bankruptcy No. 96-17406-B11 R.S. No. JTHL. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. California. February 20, 1997. *214 Ali M.M. Mojdehi, Baker & McKenzie, San Diego, CA, for Debtor. John T. Hansen, Noss

MEMORANDUM SHELLEY D. RUCKER, Bankruptcy Judge. The plaintiff First Tennessee Bank National Association (“Plaintiff’ or the “Bank”) brings this adversary proceeding against Raymond Sherman Hansen and Deborah Slaughter Hansen (“Defendants” or “Debtors”). This case involves the damages to the Debtors’ residence which served as the Bank’s collateral. There is no dispute that these damages which were signific

FIRST DIVISION ELLINGTON, C. J., PHIPPS, P. J., and DILLARD, J. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. (Court of Appeals Rule 4 (b) and Rule 37 (b), February 21, 2008) http://www.gaappeals.us/r

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

BOROFF, Bankruptcy Judge. Milo Enterprises, Inc (“Milo”) appeals from the following bankruptcy court orders: (1) the June 9, 2011 order denying its motion for summary judgment in an adversary proceeding commenced under, inter alia,, § 547,1 by William A. Howison, chapter 7 trustee of the estate of The Freaky Bean Coffee Company (the “Trustee”); and (2) the November 16, 2012 final judgmen

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 603 U. S. Part 1 Pages 369–479 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 28, 2024 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are

332 B.R. 8 (2005) In re Leonard Carl HANSEN, also known as L.C. Hansen, and Bonnie Lavonne Hansen, Debtors. Leonard Carl Hansen and Bonnie Lavonne Hansen, Plaintiffs — Appellants, v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Defendant — Appellee. BAP No. WY-04-089, Bankr. No. 03-21805, Adversary No. 04-2020. United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit. October 14, 2005.<

*Supp. 10Opinion JOHNSON (B.), J. INTRODUCTION Following a court trial, defendants Anna Tyutina and Onesra Enterprises, Inc., were convicted of violating, on August 27 and 28, 2013, Los Angeles Municipal Code (L.A. Mun. Code) sections 45.19.6.2, subdivision A,1 which prohibits operating or parti

*577MOSK, J. I dissent. I would affirm the Court of Appeal’s judgment. On considering factual issues the plurality opinion imperiously concludes that: The planning commission was wrong. The board of supervisors was wrong. The superior court was wrong.

Filed 12/19/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES THE PEOPLE, ) BR 052596 ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) East Los Angeles Trial Court ) v.

Filed 1/31/24 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA EPOCHAL ENTERPRISES, INC., D079905 Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 37-2018- 00

Filed 1/12/24; Certified for Publication 1/25/24 (order attached) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA EPOCHAL ENTERPRISES, INC., D079905 Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 37-2018- 0

Opinion TOOMEY, Judge: 11 Kris Solis appeals from a jury verdict in favor of Burningham Enterprises Inc. and Raymond Alan Davis (collectively, Defendants). Solis argues the trial court exceeded its discretion in ruling that she failed to disclose an expert witness and, on this basis, excluded the expert's testimony. Additionally, Solis argues the trial court