Cases

119 P.3d 790 (2005) 339 Or. 230 BEST v. LAMPERT. No. S52573. Supreme Court of Oregon. August 23, 2005. Petition for review denied.

57 So.3d 287 (2011) Elizabeth LAMPERT, Appellant, v. Rodney LAMPERT, Appellee. No. 4D10-2058. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. March 30, 2011. *288 Nancy W. Gregoire and Katherine O. Birnbaum of Kirschbaum, Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire, P.L.L.C., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant. Cynthia L. Greene of

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SCOTT W. SKAVDAHL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court upon an amended pro se prisoner civil rights complaint, [ECF No. 8], filed in forma pauper-is, [ECF No. 6], pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by Dennis E. Rigler, Plaintiff.-Currently pending before t

PER CURIAM. Appellant Maxine Lampert-Saeher has appealed a supplemental final judgment regarding time sharing entered in response to the second amended supplemental petition for modification filed by Mark Sacher, her former husband and appellee. Appellant’s motion for stay pending appeal was denied by the trial court. Appellant now files an emergency motion for stay in this court. We treat appellant’s motion as one seeking r

610 F.3d 1125 (2010) Richard R. LEE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Robert O. LAMPERT, Respondent-Appellant. No. 09-35276. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted October 5, 2009. Filed July 6, 2010. *1126 Stephen R. Sady, Chief Deputy Federal Public Defender of Oregon, argued the cause for t

Concurrence by Judge N.R. SMITH. OPINION O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: We must decide whether to recognize a judge-made exception to the statute of limitations for federal habeas relief in the case of a state prisoner who makes a showing of actual innocence in his original petition. I An Oregon state court jury convicted Richard Lee of two co

457 F.Supp.2d 1269 (2006) Brad SKINNER, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Robert LAMPERT, Director of the Wyoming Department of Corrections, and Scott Abbott, Warden of the Wyoming State Penitentiary, in their official capacities, Defendants. No. 02-CV-033-B. United States District Court, D. Wyoming. August 7, 2006.

ARMSTRONG, J. The state appeals from a judgment that granted petitioner post-conviction relief. The court granted petitioner a new criminal trial based on a determination that his trial counsel had provided constitutionally deficient representation by failing to challenge the competency of one of the state’s witnesses. The court also concluded that petitioner was entitled to a delayed appeal of his convictions as an alternativ

MEMORANDUM *** Woodroffe argues that his plea was not knowing and voluntary1 because his agreement was for combined sentencing of both his guilty plea offenses and his robbery, if he was convicted after trial. His theory is that he would then have received credit for *654time served from the Department of Corrections aga

13 P.3d 1038 (2000) 170 Or. App. 780 Keith H. REYNOLDS, Respondent, v. Robert LAMPERT, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, Appellant. (98-09-30037-M; CA A106223) Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted September 7, 2000. Decided November 8, 2000. *1039 Kathleen C

TASHIMA, Circuit Judge. Kevin Washington, a state prisoner convicted of aggravated murder and other offenses, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In his habeas petition, Washington asserts a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) in the negotiation and execution of his sentencing stipulation, which waived his right to appe

van Gestel, J. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF CLAIMS TRIED This case was tried to the Court and a jury. Which of the several counts of the complaint, the counterclaim and the third-party claim were waived or otherwise resolved and, consequently, which were actually tried and to whom, requires some explanation. On January 31, 2005, the defendants waived Counts IV, V, VI and VII of their coun

van Gestel, J. This matter comes before the Court on a motion by the defendants to disqualify Robert S. McLaughlin (“Mr. McLaughlin”) and the firm of Gil-man, McLaughlin & Hanrahan, LLP as attorneys for the plaintiff. BACKGROUND The underlying suit is brought by a law firm, Lampert, Hausler & Rodman, P.C. (“LH&R”), against two of its former attorneys, John F. Gallant (“Gallant”

Brock, C.J. The Town of Hudson (town) appeals the Superior Court’s (Murphy, J.) grant of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary *197judgment. The superior court reversed a decision of the Hudson planning board (board). The board had approved the plaintiffs’ site plan subject to the condition that the plaintiffs pay a “corridor allocation procedure fee,” also known as

YETKA, Justice (dissenting). This case arises from the failure of a party to sustain a claim that was, under the circumstances, impractical to prove. The majority opinion would prohibit the trial court from dismissing such a claim without prejudice. The better rule would be to allow the trial court such discretion. Here, Lampert Lumber Co. sued the owner and general contractor of a new offi

390 N.W.2d 352 (1986) Carol H. SUNDBERG, et al., Respondents, v. LAMPERT LUMBER COMPANY, et al., Appellants. No. C5-85-2135. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. July 8, 1986. Review Denied September 22, 1986. *353 John J. McGirl, Jr., Doherty, Rumble & Butler, Minneapolis, for respondents. Paul R. Hannah, O

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. This is a review of a published decision of the court of appeals, Carlson & Erickson Builders, Inc. v. Lampert Yards, Inc., 183 Wis. 2d 220, 515 N.W.2d 305 (Ct. App. 1994), reversing in part and affirming in part an order of the circuit court for Door county, John D. Koehn, circuit judge. We reverse the decision of the court of appeals. , Two questions are presented to thi

190 Wis.2d 650 (1995) 529 N.W.2d 905 CARLSON & ERICKSON BUILDERS, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross Appellant-Petitioner, v. LAMPERT YARDS, INC., Portside Properties, Inc. and Door County Material Specialists, Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Cross Respondents[†] No. 93-0195. Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Oral argument January 10, 1995. <

GIGNOUX, District Judge. This is an appeal from an order of the District Court granting a preliminary injunction against appellants for failure to comply with the disclosure provisions of Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 1934 Act), 48 Stat. 894, as added by Section 2 of the Williams Act, 82 Stat. 454, as amended, 84 Stat. 1497, 15 U.S.C. § 78m(d) (1971).

BLAND, P. J. Plaintiff is_ a manufacturer of cigars, which he sells under the name “Flor de Lampert,” and uses therewith a picture of himself as a trade-mark. The defendant, Judge & Dolph Drug Company, is a corporation and conducts a drug store, in the city of St. Louis, in which it has a cigar department. Defendant Taylor is an employee of the corporation and head clerk or salesman in the cigar department.