Cases

Getty, J. This case is a consolidated appeal of four circuit court cases in which the parties contest the application of a 2007 departmental bill revising the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act ("MCALA" or "the Act"). Md. Code (1992, 2015 Rep. Vol.), Bus. Reg. ("BR") § 7-301, et seq. The overarching issue presented in these consolidated cases is whether MCALA

Kyle Blackstone, et al. v. Dinesh Sharma, et al.; Terrance Shanahan, et al. v. Seyed Marvastian, et al., No. 40, September Term, 2017; Laura O’Sullivan, et al. v. Jeffrey Altenburg, et al., No. 45, September Term 2017; Martin Goldberg, et al. v. Martha Neviaser, et al., No. 47, September Term 2017. Opinion by Getty, J. COLLECTION AGENCIES — MARYLAND COLLECTION AGENCY LICENSING ACT — SCOPE OF LICENSING REQUIREMENT The Court of Appeals of Maryland conclude

RENDERED: OCTOBER 23, 2025 TO BE PUBLISHED Supreme Court of Kentucky 2024-SC-0314-MR JOSEPH S. MASTERS APPELLANT ON APPEAL FROM KNOX CIRCUIT COURT V. HONORABLE GREGORY A. LAY, JUDGE NO. 21-CR-00129-001 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

949 S.W.2d 470 (1997) Terry L. BLACKSTONE, Appellant, v. Nancy B. THALMAN d/b/a Thalman Properties, Appellee. No. 14-95-01153-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). July 10, 1997. *471 Ronald G. Wiesenthal, William B. Emmons, Houston, for appellant. Mark G. Lazarz, Houston, for appellee. Before YATES,

Hall, Presiding Judge. In actions for personal injuries to the husband and loss of consortium for the wife, the plaintiffs jointly appeal from the summary judgment. The undisputed evidence shows that Hendrix was employed as an electrician’s helper by H. A. Sack Co., Inc., an electrical contracting business. Sack had designed and was in the process of installing a complete power system in a plant under construct

428 Pa. 20 (1967) Bertera's Hopewell Foodland, Inc., Appellant, v. Masters. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued September 27, 1967. November 28, 1967. *21 *22 Before BELL, C.J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ. Hubert I. Teitelbaum, with him Martin M.

WIDENER, Circuit Judge: This suit, with its many separate hearings spread over more than two years, concerns alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq, and other applicable statutes concerning minimum wages. Masters, the plaintiff, was an employee of Maryland Management Company (the employer) which

*282The opinion of the court was delivered by Dawson, C. J.: This is an appeal by hotel owners from a judgment denying a temporary injunction against the operator of a dance hall located near the hotel and which was so noisily conducted in the late hours of. the night that the hotel’s guests could not sleep and in consequence the hotel was losing patrona

MAJOR, Circuit Judge. This action was commenced November 4, 1953, by former minority stockholders of Joliet & Chicago Railroad Company (herein called Joliet) against the Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company (herein called Gulf), to whose subsidiary (Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Land Company) plaintiffs, on or about February 14, 1950, sold 4,312 shares of stock of Joliet at a

LOWELL, District Judge. Every steamer is required by the statute to go at a moderate speed in a fog, and the only real dispute on this part of the case is, whether this requirement was followed. For it is not denied that after the schooner was discovered, every thing was done that could be done, and with all diligence, to avoid her, and to stop and back the steamer; and that it was then impossible to prevent the catastrophe. Nor

Mr. Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the court. Seven cases were brought in the Circuit court of Cook county by plaintiffs who are holders of preferred stock of a railroad company, the predecessor of defendant, to recover dividends due and unpaid on such stock. The seven cases were tried as one before the court without a jury, and June 30, 1941, there were findings and ju

I am unable to agree with the majority of the court, either in their reasoning or in their conclusions. In my judgment it should be held that the doctrine of "primary jurisdiction" is in force in this state, with regard to the public utilities which are under the *Page 60 control of the state "division of public utilities", as successor of the "public utilities commission." It is true that in the case of Texas Pacific Ry. Co. v.Abilen

475 F.3d 508 In re COLOR TILE INC., Debtor.Michael R. Buchanan, Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, as Disbursing Agent Under the Plan of Liquidation (Formerly the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Color Tile Inc., et al.), Appellantv.Reliance Insurance Company; Blackstone Family Investment Partnership; Pilgrim High Yield Trust; Bankers Trust Co.; IDS Extra Income Fund, Inc.; Dan Lufkin; Elise Lufkin; Northern Trust Co

STORY, Circuit Justice. Assuming for the present that the evidence makes out a case of real substantive damage to the plaintiffs’ mills, by the raising of the Woonsocket dam, the next question is, whether the record presents any justification of the act of raising the Woonsocket dam on the part of the plaintiffs. And it is most important to the parties in this aspect of the case, to advert to some of the facts, which are indispu

By the Court.—Sedgwick, J. It appears by the answer, that the securities held by the plaintiff, are *294pledged for several debts. I think the learned, judge made no mistake in determining that the application of the securities to the payment of these debts would certainly involve a long account, and possibly, a very complicated one. In Maryott v. Thayer (39

[Cite as Wolfe v. Bounty Minerals, L.L.C., 2024-Ohio-2460.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HARRISON COUNTY KARLA WOLFE ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BOUNTY MINERALS LLC, ET AL., Def

878 F.Supp. 804 (1995) MONTGOMERY COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., et al. v. REALTY PHOTO MASTER CORPORATION, et al. Civ. No. L-90-2141. United States District Court, D. Maryland. February 10, 1995. *805 *806 *807 James A. Rothschild and Gregory L. Van

783 F.Supp. 952 (1992) MONTGOMERY COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC. v. REALTY PHOTO MASTER CORPORATION, et al. Civ. No. L-90-2141. United States District Court, D. Maryland. January 24, 1992. *953 Edward T. Colbert, Richard G. Kline, Suzanne M. Parker, Washington, D.C., Lawrence M. Garten, Baltimore, Md., and B. George Ballman

BESOSA, District Judge. Before the Court is defendant Master Link Corporation ("Master Link")'s motion to dismiss plaintiff Marina PDR Operations, LLC ("Marina")'s third amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (" Rule 12(b)(6)"). (Docket No. 52.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Master Link's motion to dismiss Marina's third amended complaint.

OPINION SMITH, Circuit Judge. I. Appellant Michael Buchanan argues that the District Court’s grant of the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be reversed because the amended complaint in this case relates back to the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), thereby precluding a grant of summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. Because we