Cases

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered May 25, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Dismissal of the complaint was proper where plaintiff failed to create any triable issue of fact as to whether defendant made a misrepresentation to him that defendant knew was false in order to

OPINION Before KOELSCH and ELY, Circuit Judges, and TURRENTINE,* District Judge. PER CURIAM: This is the second time that the present controversy has been before our court. On the first appeal we reversed an Order granting Chanel a preliminary injunction and remanded the cause to enable the District Court to make appropriate findings. Smith v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ORDER REBECCA BEACH SMITH, Chief Judge. This matter comes before the court on the Petitioner’s pro se1 Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (“Motion”), filed on June 20, 2013.2 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In a Memorandum Order enter

528 F.2d 284 CHANEL, INC., and Chanel Industries, Inc., Appellees,v.R. G. SMITH, doing business under the name and style ofTa'ron, Inc., Appellant.CHANEL, INC., and Chanel Industries, Inc., Cross-Appellants,v.R. G. SMITH, doing business under the name and style ofTa'ron, Inc., Cross-Appellee. Nos. 74--2315, 74--2316. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.

[Cite as Smith v Lincoln Elec. Co., 2024-Ohio-5209.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA CHANEL M. SMITH, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 113340 v. : LINCOLN ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Matter of Mehuljit F. (Roohi F.) (2024 NY Slip Op 05099) Matter of Mehuljit F. (Roohi F.) 2024 NY Slip Op 05099 Decided on October 16, 2024 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to J

BROWNING, Circuit Judge: • Appellant R. G. Smith, doing business as Ta’Ron, Inc., advertised a fragrance called “Second Chance” as a duplicate of appellees’ “Chanel No. 5,” at a fraction *563 of the latter’s price.

Matter of Jemelle S. v Latina P. (2023 NY Slip Op 00871) Matter of Jemelle S. v Latina P. 2023 NY Slip Op 00871 Decided on February 15, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to

ORDER AND REASONS MARTIN L.C. FELDMAN, District Judge. Before the Court are two motions: (1) a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) filed by the City of New Orleans, the New Orleans Police Department, Superintendent Roñal Serpas, and NOPD Officers Davis and Boyd; and (2) motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(

Matter of Angel P. H. (Angel P. Q.) (2024 NY Slip Op 00308) Matter of Angel P. H. (Angel P. Q.) 2024 NY Slip Op 00308 Decided on January 24, 2024 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuan

Donald C. Coggins, Jr., United States District Judge This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Insufficient Service of Process.1 ECF No. 14. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition, ECF No. 19, and Defendant filed a Reply, ECF No. 20. Therefore, the Motion is ripe for review. I. Procedural and Factual History

7 A.3d 1021 (2010) Eugene J. PORTER, Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. No. 09-CM-1275. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Submitted June 29, 2010. Decided November 12, 2010. *1023 Lisa D. Chanel, appointed by the court, was on the brief for appellant. Ronald C. Machen, Jr., United States Attorney,

*1271 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S COUNTER-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI, District Judge. Be

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Apr 14 2016, 9:23 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Cour

Judgment PER CURIAM. This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

Judgment PER CURIAM. This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

402 F.Supp.2d 185 (2005) Tekle TSEHAYE, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM C. SMITH & CO., INC., Defendant. No. Civ.A. 03-1795(JDB). United States District Court, District of Columbia. September 26, 2005. *186 *187 Anne J.A. Gbenjo, the Gbenjo Law Group, Houston, TX, for plaintiff. Connie Nora B

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 527 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION Appellant Nancy Smith asserted claims of handicap discrimination, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress against her former employer, appellee Dillard Department Stores, Inc. ("Dillard"). Smith claims Judge Nancy Margaret Ru

[Cite as EduCare Med. Staffing, L.L.P. v. Stabler, 2024-Ohio-3295.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA EDUCARE MEDICAL STAFFING, LLP, : ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, : No. 112877 v. : CHANEL STABLER,