Cases

SELYA, Circuit Judge. This is a hard case- — hard not in the sense that the legal issues defy resolution, but hard in the sense that the law requires that we, like the court below, deny relief to plaintiffs whose circumstances evoke outrage. The result we must reach is rooted in positive law. Congress addressed the right to publish the speech of others in the Information Age when

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2, No. 24-177 D.C. No. Plaintiffs - Appellants, 3:21-cv-00485- JCS v. TWITTER, INC.; X CORP., OPINION Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States

CASTEL, U.S.D.J. On the night of May 15, 2015, plaintiff Richard Barnes had a confrontation on West 35th Street with non-party Joselin *320Cabrero, a woman with whom he was romantically involved. Non-party Toby Mandel Hall, a stranger to both Barnes and Cabrero, observed what he described as an assault by Barnes against Cabrero, and called 911.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge. Larry and Linda Barnes appeal from the dismissal of their Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) suit. The district court dis *1137 missed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), based on its finding that the Barneses

Wyrick, J., concurring: *706¶ 1 The dispositive issue in this case was decided when Barnes failed to appeal the Order of the Workers' Compensation Court of Existing Claims (WCC) declaring that he was not Lind's employer. Under the governing version of workers' compensation law, only "the employer and any of his employees" benefit from the

Alan C. Kay, Sr. United States District Judge *798For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the commercial use permit under which the vessel M/V Tehani (the "Tehani") is operated is not an appurtenance of the vessel. In addition, Plaintiff Chad Barry Barnes's ("Plaintiff Barnes") "Motion for an Order Appointing Himself as Substitute Custodian and Providing

Alan C. Kay, Sr. United States District Judge For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the trailer on which the M/V Tehani has been secured is an appurtenance of the vessel to which Plaintiff Barnes's maritime lien attaches. BACKGROUND For purposes of this Order, the Court will not recount this case's lengthy procedural history beginning in 2013. The Court on

Justice HEARN. This case requires us to clarify the idiopathic exception to workers’ compensation. Judy Barnes tripped and fell at work while walking down the hallway to check e-mail for another employee. Although there was no evidence that her fall was precipitated by an internal condition — such as her legs giving out or her fainting — the single commissioner and appellate panel found that her fall was idiopathic and there

ORDER BROWN, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (# 38) on June 10, 2011, 2011 WL 4962443, in which he recommended the Court (1) grant Defendant IBM Lender Business Process Services’s Motion (# 25) to Dismiss Plaintiffs claim for rescission for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and each of Plaintiffs remaining claims for failure to state a claim and (2) deny th

654 F.Supp.2d 1066 (2009) Brigit BARNES, individually and as Guardian ad Litem for minor children R.X. and M.X., Jerry Barnes, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF PLACER, Emily Hill, individually and as an employee of the County of Placer, Deputy Harroun, individually and as an employee of the County of Placer, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 2:07-cv-01678-JAM-JFM. United States District Co

CONDITIONALLY GRANT, DISMISS APPEAL and Opinion Filed June 5, 2024 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00774-CV IN RE DESOTO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Relator and DESOTO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant

OSCN Found Document:BARNES v. BARNES OSCN navigation Home Courts Court Dockets

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 605 U. S. Part 1 Pages 73–90 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT May 15, 2025 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 r

[Cite as State v. Barnes, 2025-Ohio-1684.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio/ City of Toledo Court of Appeals No. L-24-1100 Appellee Trial Court No. CRB-23-06010 v. Catrease Barnes DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant

ROBERT D. BELL, JUDGE: ¶ 1 In this post-dissolution of marriage proceeding, Petitioner/Appellant, Misty Dawn Barnes, now Wynn (Mother), appeals from an order of modification which granted Respondent/Appellee, Benjamin Scott Barnes (Father), the right to claim one minor child as a dependent for tax exemption purposes. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court’s order. ¶ 2 Mother and Father entered an

[Cite as State v. Barnes, 2025-Ohio-1967.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2024-01-011 : OPINION AND - vs -

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 125,739 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CLYDE JAMES BARNES JR., Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. A court's subject matter jurisdiction, which is its very power

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ROBERT ARTHUR MOSES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 24-2634 (UNA) ) ) REDMOND BARN

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor