Cases

Mercure, J.P Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Hoye, J.), rendered April 28, 2004, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of robbery in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree, and (2) by permission, from an order of said court (Drago, J), entered May 8, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion

174 F.Supp.2d 551 (2001) HARRISON, et al. and Schultz, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. UAW L599 et al. and UAW L659, et al., Defendant(s). Nos. 00-72345, 00-73368. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. October 10, 2001. *552 *553 Norbert B. Leonard, Kelly A. Kruse, Leonard K

Smith, P. J. — The allegations of the plaintiff’s petition were that, on the first day of February, 1886, the plaintiff and his then partner, under the name of Bowman & Harrison, contracted with defendant to deliver nineteen thousand or more cross ties on its right of way, and for which defendant agreed to pay forty cents each for all eight-inch specifications and thirty-five cents each for all seven-inch specifications, and

211 Ga. App. 375 (1993) 439 S.E.2d 106 KENNEDY v. PINELAND STATE BANK. A93A2226. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided December 14, 1993. Franklin, Taulbee, Rushing & Bunce, Elizabeth F. Bunce, for appellant. Fletcher Farrington, Brown & Livingston, Charles H. Brown, Ford & Harrison, Patricia G. Griffith, Callaway,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BARBARA M.G. LYNN, District Judge. Before the Court is the Motion to Remand [Docket Entry # 5] filed by Plaintiff Christina Patton. After considering the parties’ arguments and applicable law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Patton, a former employee of Defendant ADESA, filed suit against ADESA for discriminatio

SMALL, P.J.T.C. In this case, we revisit the consequences of the failure to file a timely Notice of Bulk Sale under the New Jersey Sales and Use Tax Act, N.J.S.A. 54:32B-1 to -29. The earlier cases helped define what a bulk sale is: Bunting v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 176 N.J.Super. 262, 1 N.J.Tax 189, 422 A.2d 815 (Tax 1980) (holding that the sale of all of a business’s equipment is a bul

SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that judgment of the district court entered on March 16, 2004, in favor of defendants is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-appellants, present and former tenants of an apartment building operated by Evergreen Gardens, Inc., appeal a final judgment dismissing their complaint against Evergreen Gardens and its managing agent, Grenadier Realty Corp. We

593 F.Supp.2d 171 (2009) Janice SCOTT-BLANTON, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 07-0098(RMU). United States District Court, District of Columbia. January 15, 2009. *173 Janice Scott-Blanton, Triangle, VA, prose. Steven Jonathan Metalitz, John Matthew Deweese William

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JANICE SCOTT-BLANTON, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 07-0098 (RMU) : v. : Document No.: 62 : UNIVERSAL CITY STUDI

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Danny C. Reeves, United States District Judge This matter is pending for consideration of cross-motions for summary judgment [Record Nos. 54; 56] filed by Plaintiff Dede Stratton and Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“PRA”), in addition to the plaintiffs motion to strike an exhibit relied upon by the defendant [Record No. 62], PRA argues that it is entitled to summ

94 N.Y.2d 499 (2000) 727 N.E.2d 1232 706 N.Y.S.2d 678 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ERIC EVANS, Appellant. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. Argued January 6, 2000. Decided February 29, 2000. *500 David E. Liebman, New York City, for appellant.<

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ______________________________ ) PETER B., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 06-1652 (RWR) ) CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, ) et al., ) ) Defendants.

620 F.Supp.2d 58 (2009) PETER B., Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 06-1652 (RWR). United States District Court, District of Columbia. June 1, 2009. *64 Mark S. Zaid, Mark S. Zaid, PC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Marcia Kay Sowles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ESTATE OF MIKAL R. GAITHER, by and through Pearl Gaither, Personal Representative, Civil Action No. 03-1458 (CKK) Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (September 8, 2009) The above-captione

OPINION BY GANTMAN, J.: Appellants, Barbara Hulme, D. Mason Whitley III, and Eugene J. Whitley, appeal from the order entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, Orphans’ Court, which denied Appellants’ exceptions to the adjudication confirming the first and final accounting of the estate of D. Mason Whitley, Jr. (“Decedent”) and made final the court’s previous award of professional fees to Appellee, Jo

655 F.Supp.2d 69 (2009) ESTATE OF Mikal R. GAITHER, by and through Pearl GAITHER, Personal Representative, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 03-1458 (CKK). United States District Court, District of Columbia. September 8, 2009. *73 Eric I. Goldberg, John Moustakas, Kartik N. Venguswamy, Richa

CHOY, Circuit Judge: The Pechanga Band of Mission Indians claims that its reservation includes 320 acres of undeveloped land in Riverside County, California, to which the defendants hold title. The district court entered summary judgment against the Band on three independent grounds. We need reach only the ground that the Government did not grant the land to the Band in order to

624 F.2d 914 Joseph A. RUSS, James Whipple, and the Covelo IndianCommunity of the Round Valley Indian Reservation,Plaintiffs, Plaintiff in Interventionand Appellees,v.Richard E. WILKINS et al., Defendants and Appellants. No. 76-2776. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 11, 1978.Decided Aug. 1, 1980.

Action to quiet title. Plaintiff's title is derived as follows: In 1892 the defendants D.E. Allison, B.R. Sackett, and James Barron were the owners of the land described in the complaint, and executed a mortgage thereon to Charles and Benjamin Golinsky. In 1893 the Golinskys brought an action for the foreclosure of this mortgage, in which they obtained judgment January 5, 1895, directing a sale of the lands in satisfaction of the mortgage debt. Under this judgment the land was sold Aug

ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV