Cases

Bell, Judge: Richard and Errol Lovering and E. C. M. and Adelaide Waller commenced these class actions to challenge the validity of a special assessment imposed on owners of property at Seabrook Island by the Seabrook Island Property Owners Association. The Loverings have refused to pay the special assessment. The Wallers paid the assessment under protest and seek a refund. The Wallers sued both the Association and the Seabrook

725 N.W.2d 470 (2006) 272 Mich. App. 260 Michael Howard OESTERLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keith D. WALLACE, Isackson & Wallace, P.C., Andrew J. Broder, and Payne, Payne, Broder & Fossee, P.C., Defendants-Appellees. Docket No. 267591. Court of Appeals of Michigan. Submitted September 7, 2006, at Lansing. Decided September 14, 2006

ORDER AND OPINION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT KENNETH A. MARRA, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Altec Environmental Products, LLC and Altec Industries, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 154]. The Court has carefully considered the motion, response, reply, oral argument of counsel, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. On November 24,

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-1659 JAMES NAPIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ORCHARD SCHOOL FOUNDATION, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southe

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-1659 JAMES NAPIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ORCHARD SCHOOL FOUNDATION, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southe

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED July 2, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk SAMUEL R. ADAMS, e t a l . , ) KNOX CHANCERY

DUNCAN, J. In this declaratory judgment action, defendants Felix and Jorge Torres-Lizama appeal a judgment declaring that they were not employed by plaintiff, Cejas Commercial Interiors, Inc., within the meaning of Oregon’s minimum-wage law, ORS 653.025.1 Defendants contend that plaintiff, a drywall contractor, was their employer while they did dry wall work that plaintiff had subcontracted to View

116 Mich. App. 471 (1982) 323 N.W.2d 446 PEOPLE v. PUROFOY PEOPLE v. WALKER Docket Nos. 52122, 53292. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided May 20, 1982. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Edward Reilly Wilson, Principal Attorney

OPINION DAVIS, Commissioner. Appeal is taken from a conviction for rape. Punishment was assessed by the jury at life. Appellant’s sole contention is that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. The prosecutrix, a nineteen year old female, attended a movie at a drive-in thea-tre in Houston with her date, Chai Thayer, on the night of April 12, 1969. Pr

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JG; NG; RG; SG,  No. 06-17380 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. v.  CV-04-00541-LRH/ DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, RAM Defendant-Appellee.  OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada

WOLFE, Acting Presiding Judge. This action involves only the counterclaim of defendant, Juanita Jackson, as the plaintiff had dismissed her action prior to the trial on the counterclaim. The counterclaim arose out of a collision between the automobile of the defendant and the automobile of the plaintiff. The defendant’s claim is for damages arising out of personal injuries, working time lost, and medical expenses. The trial wa

501 S.W.2d 503 (1973) STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Smith CARSON, Jr., Appellant. No. KCD 26343. Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District. November 5, 1973. *504 John J. Campbell, Farley, for appellant. John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Mark D. Mittleman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent. Befo

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROD SOSA; GARY WHITTAKER;  RODNEY BYLSMA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DIRECTV, INC.; HUGHES ELECTRONICS CORPORATION; GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; No. 04-55036 YARMUTH WILSDON CALFO, PLLC; GREER, HERZ & ADAMS, LLP;  D.C. No. CV-03-05972-AHM STUMP, STOREY, CALLAHAN &

Eberhardt, Judge. The first issue raised involves the question as to whether this was a proper case for declaratory judgment, it being contended that since the insurer was already a party to the main suits by virtue of the third-party complaint filed by the insured the issues could be adjudicated in those actions, that all rights of the in*728surer had accrued when the d

Peter Treolo brought an action of trespass on the case against the Iroquois Auto Insurance Underwriters (herein called the company) in the circuit court of Winnebago county. The suit was based upon a policy of insurance, whereby, among other provisions, the company undertook *Page 94 to protect Treolo against loss growing out of personal injuries to others because of the operation of the insured's automobile. Two judgments had been obtained against Treolo

Complainant and defendant were married on June 16th, 1922, and defendant procured a divorce, on July 1st, 1924, from complainant on the ground of desertion. Shortly after the marriage, defendant bought a lot at Bridgeton, and later on erected a bungalow home thereon. It was conceded, by both parties, that all the money expended in the purchase of the lot, and the erection of the bungalow, was the money of the defendant. Title was placed in the name of the husband and wife, creating an estate

The opinion of tlie court was delivered by Swayze, J. Tlie defendant was convicted of the murder of his illegitimate infant child. The errors argued in his brief are two. He complains of the admission of testimony by a third person as to a statement made in his presence by his wife and his silence and final reply. It is said that this in effect was compelling the wife to give evidence against her husband in a c

630 P.2d 840 (1981) 291 Or. 318 BOB GODFREY PONTIAC, INC., an Oregon Corporation, Petitioner, v. Larry ROLOFF and Douglas Melevin, Respondents. No. 78-5902; CA 16378; SC 27430. Supreme Court of Oregon. Argued and Submitted March 3, 1981. Decided July 8, 1981. *841 Richard C. Houghton, Euge

38 N.J. Super. 535 (1956) 120 A.2d 52 ELEANOR TURRO, INDIVIDUALLY, AND GERARD ALBERT TURRO, AN INFANT, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ELEANOR TURRO, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. CHARLES TURRO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued December 19, 1955. Decided January 6, 1956. *538</

The action was brought for the recovery of certain knitting mill machinery which was shipped from Raleigh, N.C. to the plaintiff at Kernersville, N.C. When the machinery arrived at Kernersville it was found to be in a damaged condition, and plaintiff refused to receive it, according to plaintiff's version of the facts, unless the defendant would take a qualified receipt for it, showing its bad condition, (374) which defendant declined to do. The machinery was, therefore, placed in defendant'