Cases

957 A.2d 707 (2008) 403 N.J. Super. 125 Fiona BAYNE, Plaintiff-Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. Earl JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Respondent, and Carolyn Johnson, Defendant. Docket No. A-0974-06T1. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued November 5, 2007. Decided October 27, 2008.

05/26/2020 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE January 23, 2020 Session MITZI BAYNE RUTH, ET AL. v. HOME HEALTH CARE OF MIDDLE TENNESSEE, LLC., ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Bradley County No. 2016-CV-257 Jerri S. Bryant, Chancellor

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 10, 2012 Session MITZI BAYNE RUTH, executrix of the Estate of FRED W. BAYNE, et al., v. HOME HEALTH CARE OF MIDDLE TENNESSEE, LLC, et al. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Bradley County No. 07-284 Hon. Jerri S. Bryant, Chancellor No. E2011-02681-COA-R3-CV-FILED-OCTOBER 1, 2012 This action was appealed be

Brevet Direct Lending Short Duration Fund, L.P. v Aprio LLP (2024 NY Slip Op 03128) Brevet Direct Lending Short Duration Fund, L.P. v Aprio LLP 2024 NY Slip Op 03128 Decided on June 11, 2024 Appellate Division, First Department Publishe

OPINION COATS, Judge. Keith Bayne was convicted, based upon his pleas of no contest, of two counts of misconduct involving a controlled substance in the fourth degree, a class C felony. AS 11.71.040(a)(2). Bayne was convicted for selling five ounces of marijuana to a state confidential informant for $1,250, and for possession of five ounces of marijuana with the intent to deliver. The state established

593 S.W.2d 519 (1980) Elbert BAYNE et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. W. K. JENKINS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 61295. Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc. January 15, 1980. Rehearing Denied January 15, 1980. *521 Landon H. Rowland, Roy C. Bash, Bruce G. Heavner, Kansas City, for defendant-appellant. Jim Tom

Brevet Direct Lending Short Duration Fund, L.P. v Aprio LLP (2025 NY Slip Op 05570) Brevet Direct Lending Short Duration Fund, L.P. v Aprio LLP 2025 NY Slip Op 05570 Decided on October 09, 2025 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau

371 S.W.2d 663 (1963) Napoleon EMILY, Mary Margaret Emily and Lucy Ann Emily, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James R. BAYNE, Maude Bayne, Mercantile Trust Company, a Corporation, and Cornet & Zeibig, Inc., a Corporation, Defendants-Respondents. No. 31344. St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri. October 15, 1963. *664 Norman Barken,

114 Ga. App. 27 (1966) 150 S.E.2d 311 BAYNE v. SUN FINANCE COMPANY No. 1. 42082. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Argued June 10, 1966. Decided July 5, 1966. N. T. Anderson, for appellant. Fryer, Hays & Turk, Joel J. Fryer, for appellee. EBERHARDT, Judge. 1. In a suit against one who signed

The opinion of the court was delivered by Breaux, J. The controversy is between the third opponent and plaintiff, the latter claiming to be paid by preference out of the proceeds of the sale of property sold at the instance of plaintiff with claim secured as to its payment by mortgage. The following is a brief history of the case. Plaintiff was the vendor of the land to Anthony Hogan, for $6

Howhdii, J. This is a suit on a mortgage note given in part payment of certain lots of ground in this city, by defendant, to which he pleaded the general denial and a failure of consideration. The evidence shows that plaintiff obtained the note before maturity, and fully establishes his right to recover. Defendant’s counsel, however, objected to going to trial and reserved a bill of exceptions to the refusal

PIERCE, Judge. This is an apeal from a final declaratory decree entered by the Hillsborough County Circuit Court adjudicating to be void and invalid a rule and regulation promulgated by the Florida State Board of Dispensing Opticians, created under F.S. Ch. 484, F. S.A. The Rule in question (Rule 245-1.03) imposes a limitation on the place of optical dispensing, by providing that—

This suit was brought by appellant against Ross Bayne and a number of other individual defendants to recover damages for the alleged wrongful impounding and sale of cattle belonging to appellant, for injuries to a cow belonging to appellant causing her death, and for the destruction of a mulberry tree claimed by appellant to have been situated and growing upon his premises. *Page 420 The cause of action upon which the suit is based is thus alleged

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas OPINION No. 04-24-00300-CV SAN ANTONIO FAMILY ASSOCIATION, Texas Right to Life, Texas Leadership Coalition, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, Bexar County Republican Party, Allied Women’s Center of San Antonio, San Antonio Coalition for Life, Texas Eagle Forum, Unite San Antonio, Patrick Von Dohlen, Michael R.

Gilbert, J.: The magistrate acquired no jurisdiction in this case, for two reasons: First. The act of abandoning or threatening to abandon a wife or child is a quasi criminal offense. It is a mistake to suppose that the act of 1871 (chap. 395) was, or that antecedent statutes of a similar import were passed for the purpose of affording a civil remedy to deserted wives. The law has otherwise provi

PER CURIAM. When appellants were first brought to trial on the indictment involved here, the court, sua sponte, declared a mistrial. Upon the retrial which is under review here, appellants claimed that the first trial constituted former jeopardy and moved to be discharged. The trial judge denied this motion, and the correctness of his ruling is the sole issue presented

McAdam, J. The-action was on a! contract in these words; “ New York, November 19; 1894. “ Patterson Gas Governor Co. ■ 553- West 33d Street. “Please attach to meter at Riverside drive, comer of 108th street, Patterson gas governor, for which I hereby promise to pay to your order ninety dollar

Alvey, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case the deed by the husband to the wife, of all his real estate, was made in September, 1868, for the recited consideration of eight thousand dollars. It was made after suit had been brought by the complainants now seeking to have the' deed declared void as against themselves, and but a short time before they recovered' judgments against the grantor. The

938 F.2d 1150 Jack HIDAHL and Cindy Hidahl, individually and as nextfriends on behalf of Tore Hidahl and Tad Hidahl,Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.GILPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Susie Lala,individually and as an employee of the Gilpin CountyDepartment of Social Services, Jane Felix, individually andas an employee of the Gilpin County Department of SocialServices, Mary Mason, individually and as an employee of

PRESENT: All the Justices COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA OPINION BY v. Record No. 240326 JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL MAY 29, 2025 JAMAR PAXTON FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA The Commonwealth of Virginia appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the convictions of Jamar Paxton (“Paxton