Cases

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit smuggling and possession of a controlled substance after a search of his cell disclosed a

GRUBB, District Judge. The appellant, a citizen of North Carolina, filed his bill in equity in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia against the appellee, which was a national banking corporation, doing business at Rome, Ga. The purpose of the bill was to enforce against the defendant bank the right given a stockholder in a national bank, upon the amendment of the charter of the bank,, to w

586 F.2d 59 Joseph MUSSO, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Raffaele SURIANO, Dean, Loyola University School ofDentistry, John Madonia, Associate Dean, LoyolaUniversity School of Dentistry, andLoyola University School ofDentistry,Defendants-Appellees.Patrick BATT, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.MARION HEIGHTS, INC., Sister Lillian Van Domlen, SisterRosalie Klein, Sister M. Mel O'Dowd, Sister AngiolaStickelmaier, Siste

Mr. Justice Fairchild delivered the opinion of the Court. The brief for the appellant is as follows: “ The decree is “ erroneous because in this case there is no such promise either express or to be implied from the part payment, as will take “ the case out of the statute of limitations. An acknowledg- “ ment by the debtor of an indefinite balance due on the c

ADOPTION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DEBORAH A. BATTS, District Judge. On September 5, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), denying Defendants’ Motion to Strike, recommending that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted as to Plaintiffs’ federal law claims, and recommending that Plaintiffs’ state law claims be dismisse

692 F.Supp.2d 316 (2010) James Kenneth KANSAS, Plaintiff, v. EMPIRE CITY SUBWAY COMPANY (LIMITED) and the City of New York, Defendants. No. 06 Civ. 7601 (DAB). United States District Court, S.D. New York. February 22, 2010. *317 Leonard Samuel Slavit, Ira Stuart Slavit, Levine & Slavit, Esq., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

254 Wis.2d 721 (2002) 2002 WI App 119 647 N.W.2d 868 Barbara L. BATT and Donald M. Batt, Sr., Plaintiffs-Co-Appellants-Cross-Respondents, v. Guineth L. SWEENEY and Allstate Insurance Company, Defendants-Respondents-Cross-Appellants,[†] MAYLINE COMPANY, INC., Subrogated Defendant-Appellant, BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD UNITED OF WISCONSIN, Subrogated Defendant.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. RICHARD EVANS (SC 21006) Mullins, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Ecker, Dannehy and Bright, Js. Syllabus Convicted of murder and carrying a pistol without a permit in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant claimed that the trial court had improperly admitted the testimony of a lay witness, M, concerning his identifica

2020 IL 124046 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (Docket No. 124046) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. ASHANTI LUSBY, Appellee. Opinion filed October 22, 2020. JU

Maryland State Board of Elections, et al. v. Anthony J. Ambridge, et al., No. 26, September Term, 2024, Opinion by Booth, J. ELECTION LAW CHALLENGES — CHALLENGES TO CHARTER AMENDMENT BALLOT QUESTIONS INITIATED BY LEGISLATIVE BODY UNDER ARTICLE XI-A OF THE MARYLAND CONSTITUTION Section 9-203 of the Election Law Article (“EL”) of the Maryland Code (2022 Repl. Vol., 2024 Supp.) is not a proper mechanism to challenge either: (1) whether a ballot question pertaining to a proposed charter amendment

266 S.W.3d 813 (2008) Wilbert HARP, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. No. 2007-SC-000288-MR. Supreme Court of Kentucky. October 23, 2008. Ordered to be Published October 27, 2008. *816 Daniel T. Goyette, Louisville Metro Public Defender, Elizabeth B. McMahon, Assistant Public Defender, Office of t

2020 IL 124046 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (Docket No. 124046) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. ASHANTI LUSBY, Appellee. Opinion filed October 22, 2020.—Rehearing denied February 26, 202

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA PUBLISHED Present: Judges Fulton, Ortiz and Raphael Argued at Norfolk, Virginia STAVROS P. GALIOTOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE ANTHONY S. GALIOTOS TRUST AND TRUSTEE OF THE IRENE A. GALIOTOS TRUST v. Record No. 0068-24-1 TASOS A. GALIOTOS, INDIVIDUALLY AS BENEFICIARY UNDER THE WILL OF IRE

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA PUBLISHED Present: Judges Fulton, Ortiz and Raphael Argued at Norfolk, Virginia STAVROS P. GALIOTOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE ANTHONY S. GALIOTOS TRUST AND TRUSTEE OF THE IRENE A. GALIOTOS TRUST v. Record No. 0068-24-1 TASOS A. GALIOTOS, INDIVIDUALLY AS BENEFICIARY UNDER THE WILL OF IRE

BATTS, District Judge. Defendants Hilton Hotels Corporation and Hilton Waldorf-Astoria Corporation (“Hilton-Waldorf”) move for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) on all of plaintiff’s claims. For the following reasons, the defendants’ motion is denied in all respects. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Gisela Moog (“Moog”) is a German citizen who stayed at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in

PER CURIAM. Todd Verdone insists that he has an absolute constitutional right to travel and therefore is not subject to the Wisconsin traffic code, and on that basis he challenges various traffic-related rulings including a citation and $10 fine for driving without wearing a seat belt; a citation and $69 fine for driving an unregistered vehicle (later held in contempt, arrested,

[Cite as State v. Linkous, 2013-Ohio-5853.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 12CA3517 vs. : RAYMOND LINKOUS, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

DECISION AND ORDER WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, District Judge: Before the Court is Petitioner Noel Hicks’s Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For his role in three burglaries, Petitioner was convicted in New York state court of three counts of burglary in the second degree, one count of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, one count of criminal

SPRECHER, Circuit Judge. These three cases have been consolidated for opinion on the recurring issue of when the actions of a private entity can properly be characterized as occurring “under color of state law” allowing maintenance of an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. I In all three cases, the district court granted defendant’s motions to dismiss the complaints for lack of subject matt

ESPINOSA, J., dissenting. "'Twill be recorded for a precedent, And many an error by the same example Will rush into the state." W. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, act IV, sc. i. I write this dissenting opinion not to address the concurring opinion of Justice Palmer, who continues to believe that State v. Santiago,