Cases

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 5D23-608 LT Case No. 2018-11957-PRDL _____________________________ STEVEN CHAUNCY, Appellant, v. DENNIS LEE GORDEN AND THE ESTATE OF ADDISON WOOLLEN MCNAIRY, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County. Margaret W. Hudson, Judge.

SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Kevin Thomas Duffy, Judge), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED in part and VACATED and REMANDED in part. Defendant Pan Deng appeals from a judgment entered in the United State

Per Curiam. Tamarick Cruz appeals a trial court order that denied all eleven grounds of his motion for post-conviction relief, ten summarily and one after evidentiary hearing. In his initial brief, he limits his challenges to the denial of four grounds. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part -for an evidentiary hearing on two grounds. Appellant was tried, along with a co-defendant,'and convicted

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL DONALD, District Judge. Petitioner, Chauncy Gray, filed a motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. Petitioner contends that the government, through the actions of Officer Richard Borgers (“Bor-gers”) and his alleged agent, Delbert Delano Brooks (“Brooks”), knowingly, intentionally, and willfully induced Shelly McCaster (“McCaster”)

Savage, J. This action raises two issues regarding the efficacy of a validation notice under Section 1692(g) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) the Third Circuit has yet to address. The first is whether a notice advising the debtor that the debt collector must "hear from" the debtor within thirty days to dispute the debt complies with the FDCPA. The other is whether a validation notice that demands that the debt colle

(2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Lenard Chauncy DIXON, Defendant. No. 07-40124-01-SAC. United States District Court, D. Kansas. April 24, 2008. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SAM A. CROW, Senior District Judge. This Hobbs Act case comes before the court on the following motions filed by the defendant Lenard Dixon: motion to suppress evide

736 So.2d 763 (1999) Sherry MAGGARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 98-01118. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. July 2, 1999. *764 James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Tosha Cohen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee

TYSON, Judge. Ivory Lamont Messick (“defendant”) appeals from his jury conviction and sentence for the first-degree murder of Reginald Carr (“Carr”). We find no error. I. Background Carr died from gunshot wounds to his head and neck. His body was discovered burned beyond recognition. On 17 November 2000, Carr rode with Chauncy Robinson (“Robinson”) and Will Pigford (“Pigford”) to the h

Smith, J. This is an appeal by the rent control board of Cambridge (board) from a judgment entered in the Superior Court which determined that the plaintiffs’ residence is an owner-occupied three-family house which is exempt from St. 1976, c. 36, the Cambridge Rent Control Act (Act).2 The board argues that the property is a five-family dwelling and therefore is not exempt from rent control.</

In the United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 93-655C, 93-6568, 93-6578, 93-6582, 97-5837, 97-5845 1 Filed: January 27, 2025 Reissued: September 5, 2025 ANAHEIM GARDENS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. Harry J. Kelly, III, Nixon Peabody LLP, Washington, DC, for the Plaintiffs. Amanda L. Tantum, Senior Litigation Couns

In the United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 93-655C, 93-6568, 93-6578, 93-6582, 97-5837, 97-5845 1 Filed: January 24, 2025 ANAHEIM GARDENS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. Harry J. Kelly, III, Nixon Peabody LLP, Washington, DC, for the Plaintiffs. Amanda L. Tantum, Senior Litigation Counsel, A. Bondurant Eley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Emma E. Bo

888 P.2d 509 (1994) Lisa Rae MOSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. No. F-91-347. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. December 22, 1994. William N. Peterson, Dist. Atty., Chris Ross, Asst. Dist. Atty., Wewoka, for the State, at trial. W.B. Ward, Jr., Ada, for defendant at trial. Garvin A. Isaacs, Wendell B. Sutton, Oklahoma City, for appel

Per Curiam. *1021The moving papers indicate that despite written notices sent to them by the Office of Court Administration at their last known address, respondents have failed to register and pay the required fee. Judiciary Law § 468-a (5) provides that noncompliance with the statute and rules regarding attorney registration “shall constitute conduc

Per Curiam. *1021The moving papers indicate that despite written notices sent to them by the Office of Court Administration at their last known address, respondents have failed to register and pay the required fee. Judiciary Law § 468-a (5) provides that noncompliance with the statute and rules regarding attorney registration “shall constitute conduc

The opinion of the court was delivered by Lippincott, J. The plaintiffs in this action are attorneys .•and counsellors at law of this state, and this action is by them, as partners, against the. defendant for services as his attorneys •and solicitors, and for counsel fees for advocacy in the courts of this state and the courts of the United States, in his behalf, us well as for other items, for money loaned and t

38 F.Supp. 72 (1941) M. WITMARK & SONS v. FRED FISHER MUSIC CO., Inc., et al. District Court, S. D. New York. March 24, 1941. *73 R. W. Perkins, of New York City (Stuart H. Aarons and Stanleigh P. Friedman, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff. Hays, St. John, Abramson & Schulman, of New York City (John Schulman and Ro

110 U.S. 301 (1884) ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. TURRILL Administratrix. MICHIGAN SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN INDIANA RAILROAD COMPANY v. Same. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 11th, 14th, 1884. Decided January 28th, 1884. APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.

1. The question raised by the defendants' first exception is whether it was permissible in any view of the facts to compute interest on the verdict from February 7, 1903, that being the date upon which the defendants flowed the plaintiff's land. In answering this question it will be necessary to consider the nature of this proceeding. Two views have been presented: one that it is an action to assess the damages the plaintiff has sustained because of the defendants' illegal acts, and the other

729 S.W.2d 768 (1987) TEXACO, INC., Appellant, v. PENNZOIL, CO., Appellee. No. 01-86-0216-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.). February 12, 1987. Rehearings Denied April 24 and May 26, 1987. *784 Russell H. McMains, McMains & Constant, Corpus Christi, Gibson Gayle, Jr., James B. Sales, Fulbrigh