Cases

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc MARY ELIZABETH ANNE COLEMAN, ) Opinion issued September 20, 2024 KATHLEEN ANNE FORCK, HANNAH ) SUE KELLY AND MARGUERITE ) ANN “PEGGY” FORREST, ) ) Respondents, ) ) v. ) No. SC100742 ) JOHN R. ASHCROFT,

MEMORANDUM OPINION MARK B. McFEELEY, Bankruptcy Judge. This matter came before the Court for trial on the merits of trustee’s complaint to avoid post-petition transfer. Defendant is debtor’s daughter. In his complaint trustee sought the return of some $55,000 paid to the defendant or for her benefit after the bankruptcy petition was filed that he alleged was paid in violation of Title 11. For the reasons

607 S.E.2d 519 (2004) 216 W.Va. 413 Lorrie McMAHON, individually, and as the representative of The Class of All Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiffs Below v. ADVANCED TITLE SERVICES COMPANY OF WEST VIRGINIA, a West Virginia corporation; Advanced Real Estate Services Corporation of America, a Pennsylvania corporation; Nations of Pennsylvania, Inc., a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of West V

953 F.2d 433 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.James Harold ROBINSON, Appellant. No. 90-2564WA. United States Court of Appeals,Eighth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 14, 1991.Decided Jan. 9, 1992.Rehearing Denied April 2, 1992. William R. Wilson, Little Rock, Ark., argued (John Richard Byrd, Hamburg, Ark.,

WILLIAM E. DOYLE, Circuit Judge. INTRODUCTION This is an oil and gas law unitization case in which the Jacobs, the defendants-appellants here, appeal the district court’s declaratory judgment which held valid a certain oil, gas and mineral lease between Amoco, as lessee, and the Jacobs, as lessors.

11/13/2019 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 22, 2019 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE V. DENTON JONES Appeal by Permission from the Court of Criminal Appeals Criminal Court for Knox County No. 105473 G. Scott Gr

ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, JR., District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts III-VI of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 12) and Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to the Motion (Dkt. # 19); Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief (Dkt. # 20) and Plaintiffs Opposition (Dkt. # 21). Upon review and consideration, it is the Court’s conclusio

EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION On August 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). Docket No. 16 ("FAC"). Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on August 30, 2018. Docket No. 17 ("Mot."). Both parties were heard on the matter on October 25, 2018. II. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5037 September Term, 2024 1:25-cv-00412-RC Filed On: March 28, 2025 Cathy A. Harris, in her personal capacity and in her o

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAYING CASE CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge. Plaintiff Genevieve Meyer has brought a putative class action against T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”), alleging four causes of action relating to T-Mobile’s assessment of state and federal surcharges on its bills to subscribers for mobile telephone services. See generally Rivas Decl.

Recurrent Energy Dev. Holdings, LLC v. SunEnergy1, LLC, 2018 NCBC 59. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION MECKLENBURG COUNTY 16 CVS 15107 RECURRENT ENERGY DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, ORDER AND OPINION ON CROSS- v. MOTIONS FOR SUMMA

Higgins v. Synergy Coverage Sols., LLC, 2020 NCBC 4. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION MECKLENBURG COUNTY 18 CVS 12548 ARLENE B. HIGGINS, Plaintiff, v. SYNERGY COVERAGE ORDER AND OPINION ON SOLUTIONS, LLC; SYNERGY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS HOLDINGS, LLC; SYNERG

ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court Jackson v. City of Chicago, 2012 IL App (1st) 111044 Appellate Court IVY JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Caption Defendant-Appellee. District & No. First District, Sixth Division Docket No. 1-11-1044 Filed June 29, 2012 Held

25 S.W.3d 882 (2000) Allan HAWKINS, Appellant, v. Al WALVOORD; Allen D. Cummings; Cotton, Bledsoe, Tighe & Dawson, A.P.C.; Michael T. Morgan; Midland County Bar Association; Midland County Bar Plan; Michael C. Tighe; Victor Torres; Carmen Eiker; John J. Rivas; Harper Estes; Jeff Norwood; James Fitz-Gerald; John Hyde; George D. Gilles; Dean Rucker; Vann Culp; Stubbeman, McRae, Sealy, Laughlin & Browder, Inc.; Mark Dettman; Pat Baskin; Will

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EILEEN CRAIG,  Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M&O AGENCIES, INC., an Arizona corporation dba Mahoney Group; No. 05-16427 LEON BYRD, individually and in his capacity as President of M&O  D.C. No. CV-04-00232-MLR Agencies, Incorporated dba The Mahoney Group; PATRICIA

*1189ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; DENYING DEFENDANT HIREASE’S JOINDER IN MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Ronald Gillette began driving for Uber in the San Francisco Bay Area in March 2013. Gillette Docket No. 7 at ¶

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS MARTIN GLENN, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Before the Court are four motions to dismiss filed by defendants GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (“GreenPoint”), Summit Financial Mortgage LLC (“Summit Financial”), Summit Community Bank, Inc. (“Summit Community” and, together with Summit Financial, “Summi

945 A.2d 1244 (2008) 404 Md. 107 Afaf Nassar KHALIFA, et al. v. Michael SHANNON. No. 56, September Term, 2007. Court of Appeals of Maryland. April 9, 2008. *1245 William C. Brennan, Jr. (William A. Mitchell, Jr., Brennan Sullivan & McKenna LLP, Greenbelt), on brief, for appellants. Stephen J. Cu

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. I. In United States v. Wise, 923 F.2d 86 (8th Cir.1991), a panel of this court reversed James Michael Wise’s sentence on the ground that the district court had improperly relied upon a probation officer’s hearsay testimony without undertaking the confrontation clause analysis required by our decision in United States v. Fortier, 911 F.2d 100 (8th Cir.1990). Thereafte

ACCEPTED 15-24-00120-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/14/2025 6:14 PM No. 15-24-00120-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE