Cases

04/26/2022 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 1, 2021 Session BARBARA MATTHEWS LAW v. HALBERT GRANT LAW, JR. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County No. 17-0883 Jeffrey M. Atherton, Chancellor ___________________________________

ORDER PER CURIAM. Maureen Matthews appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Barbara Graham and Eastman, Dillon, Graham, and Goldfarb, LLP (“Counsel”) on her petition for legal malpractice, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. We find that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Counsel.

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 18a0108p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT BARBARA FLETCHER; TIMOTHY PHILPOT; MARCIA ┐ FINK; LUCINDA SMITH, │ Plaintiffs-Appellees, │

Opinion KELLER, J. The plaintiffs, Michael Matthews and Stephen Kotfila, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs, Massachusetts residents, brought the underlying action against twenty-one defendants seeking damages sounding in a number of legal theories for the alleged dilutio

672 S.E.2d 633 (2009) MATTHEWS v. The STATE. No. S08A1577. Supreme Court of Georgia. January 26, 2009. *635 Thomas Sterling Robinson III, Robinson & Associates, Snellville, for Appellant. Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Reggie Allen Lampkin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Barbara B. Conroy, Deputy Chief Asst. Dist. Atty., Gwendolyn

KELLY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Barbara Williams appeals the district court’s denials of two motions to remand; grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendant-appellees Employers Mutual Casualty Company, Capitol Indemnity Insurance Co., and Owners Insurance Company; and grant of consent judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee The Collier Organization,

Opinion McLACHLAN, J. The question raised by this appeal is whether the offer of judgment statute, General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 52-192a,1 applies in the context of con*806demnation appeals. The plaintiffs, Thomas Santa Barbara, Jr., and Frank Perrotti, Jr., the owners of real property (owners) condemne

GEER, Judge. In this case, although defendant Robert Eugene Matthews was convicted of felonious larceny, the jury could not reach a verdict on felonious breaking and entering. Because the jury did not make any finding that the value of goods taken during the larceny was more than $1,000.00, we are required under State v. Keeter, 35

PER CURIAM: The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) and respondent have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent pursuant to Rule 21, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, in which respondent admits misconduct and agrees to either an admonition or a public reprimand. Respondent further agrees to pay the costs associated with ODC’s investigation into this matter. We accept the agreement and' issue a public reprimand. Within thirty

By the Court, HARDESTY, J.: Appellant/cross-respondent Frederic and Barbara Rosenberg Living Trust (the Trust) purchased a residential lot that adjoins respondent Shahin Malek's residential lot (the Lot), and which also adjoins a golf course. The Lot also includes a small parcel of land (the out-of-bounds parcel), which had previously been an out-of-bounds area between the golf course and the Lot. In this appeal, we must determine

OPINION KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. There are good reasons not to call an opponent’s argument “ridiculous,” which is what State Farm calls Barbara *585 Bennett’s principal argument here. The reasons include civility; the near-certainty that overstatement will only push the rea

988 A.2d 209 (2010) 294 Conn. 785 TOWN OF BRANFORD v. Thomas SANTA BARBARA, Jr., et al. New England Estates, LLC v. Town of Branford. Nos. 18089, 18091. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued May 26, 2009. Decided February 16, 2010. *211 Wesley W. Horton, Hartford, with whom were

OPINION Opinion by Justice BRIDGES. Appellants Barbara Soules Young (“Young”) and Amy Ganci (“Ganci”) appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion to dismiss. In a single issue, appellants contend the trial court should have granted their motion to dismiss pursuant to chapter 27 of the Texas civil practice and remedies code, the Texas Citizens Pa

ARMSTRONG, Judge. This case involves an intersectional collision between the plaintiff, Freddie Domino, and the defendant, Barbara Matthews. The accident occurred in the middle of the intersection of Desire and North Roche-blave Streets. The front of Matthews’ vehicle struck Domino’s vehicle in the middle of the passenger side. Domino and his guest passenger, George Thomas, sued Matthews and Hertz Corp. (“He

Kuntz, J. The City of Cooper City appeals the court’s final judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, a class of citizens -challenging the city’s special assessment. The court found the special assessment void and, therefore, found its twenty-day deadline to challenge it inapplicable. We disagree. The Plaintiffs limited their challenge to Cooper City’s apportion

JUSTICE SLATER delivered the opinion of the court: The defendant, Micah S. Matthews, entered an open plea of guilty to a charge of robbery (720 ILCS 5/18- — 1 (West 1996)). He was sentenced to five years in prison. The trial court further ordered the defendant to reimburse Rock Island County $350 for the cost of providing

OPINION HENRY, Senior Judge. The St. Matthews Fire Protection District appeals from an adverse summary judgment in the Jefferson Circuit Court, dismissing its claims against various Jefferson County tax collection officials arising from their failure to assess and collect a portion of the tax revenue due the District. Upon review, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUN

725 S.W.2d 275 (1986) Jordan Royce MATTHEWS, Jr., Appellant, v. Carol Kay MATTHEWS, Appellee. No. 01-85-01015-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.). December 4, 1986. Rehearing Denied February 19, 1987. *276 Earle S. Lilly, Piro & Lilly, Houston, for appellant. Burta Rhoads Raborn, Barbara

ORDER PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals the judgment from a conviction of robbery in the first degree, § 569.020 RSMo 1994. He was sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment. This appeal is consolidated with an appeal from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b). Defendant failed to allege in his brief any error i

Matthews v Roe (2021 NY Slip Op 02382) Matthews v Roe 2021 NY Slip Op 02382 Decided on April 21, 2021 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 43