Cases

GARRETT, J. _JjThe plaintiff, Michael W. Pratt, appeals from a jury verdict and judgment rejecting his personal injury claims arising out of a rear-end auto accident. The plaintiff argues that the trial court made several evi-dentiary errors that denied him a fair trial. He urges that the verdict and judgment must be vacated and that this court should render a judgment for damages in his favor. For the following reasons, we af

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), entered on or about December 13, 2011, which adjudicated defendant a level one sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs. Since defendant never objected to his designation as a sexually violent offender, which was based on his underlying

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

SMITH, Chief Judge, concurring. I concur in the court's holding that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Deputy Clark, as he lacked "fair notice" of his conduct's unlawfulness. See Kisela v. Hughes , --- U.S. ----, 138 S. Ct. 1148

68 So.3d 310 (2011) Elizabeth R. BAINBRIDGE, Appellant, v. James Lawrence PRATT, Jr., Appellee. No. 1D10-6791. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. August 4, 2011. *311 Mark J. Fraser, Gainesville, for Appellant. No appearance for Appellee. WOLF, J. The mother challenges a final judgment deter

73 F.3d 371NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Dwight Clark PRATT, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-30225. United States Co

|,BROWN, J„ Defendants, Tubious . Pratt and Darrin Simpson, were convicted as charged of aggravated rape, a violation of La. R.S. 14:42, and aggravated kidnaping, a violation of La. R.S. 14:44. On each count, the trial court imposed life sentences without benefit to run concurrently. Defendants have appealed their convictions and sentences. We affirm. Facts At about 5:00 a.m. on

604 N.W.2d 822 (1999) 258 Neb. 402 Juneal PRATT, appellant, v. Harold CLARKE et al., appellees. No. S-97-1267. Supreme Court of Nebraska. December 23, 1999. *824 Juneal D. Pratt, pro se. Don Stenberg, Attorney General, and Terri M. Weeks, Lincoln, for appellees. HENDRY, C.J., WRIGHT, CONNOLLY

212 P.3d 29 (2009) PRIDE OF SAN JUAN, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Loren PRATT d/b/a Loren Pratt Farms, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 07-0820. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department E. January 29, 2009. *30 Clark & Associates By A. James Clark, Yuma, Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellee.<

38 F.Supp.2d 63 (1999) Mary V. PRATT v. Kelley C. PHILBROOK. No. Civ.A. 97-30183-MAP. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. February 25, 1999. *64 Edward W. McIntyre, Clinton, MA, for Mary V. Pratt, plaintiff. Paul G. Pino, Clark, Balboni & Gildea, Brockton, MA, for Kelley C. Philbrook, defendant. Paul

590 N.W.2d 426 (1999) 8 Neb. App. 199 Juneal PRATT, appellant, v. Harold CLARKE et al., appellees. No. A-97-1267. Court of Appeals of Nebraska. March 16, 1999. *429 Juneal D. Pratt, appellant pro se. Don Stenberg, Attorney General, and Terri M. Weeks, Lincoln, for appellees. MUES, INBODY, and

The plaintiff in error has filed seven assignments of error, which are as follows: "(1). That the court erred in overruling the demurrer of the plaintiff in error to petition of plaintiffs below as the same was amended. "(2) That the court erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error to set aside answers to special questions. "(3) The court erred in overruling the motion of the plaintiff in error for judgment notwithstanding the special questions and answers there

The opinion of the court was delivered by Marshall, J.: In this action, the plaintiffs sued to recover $1,000 attorneys’ fees for services rendered in collecting a policy of life insurance issued on the life of Charles W. Pratt and made payable to his father, the defendant George H. Pratt. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs for the amount claimed with interest thereon. The defendant appeals.

MOORMAN, Judge: The appellant, Paul J. Pratt, appeals a November 24, 2003, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision that denied his claims for monetary benefits for spina bifi-da. Record (R.) at 1-4. Both parties have filed briefs. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and 7266(a) to review the November 24, 2003, Board decision. For the reasons set forth

WOODLOCK, District Judge. At a settlement conference with the trial judge, the parties announced they had agreed upon terms to resolve this case. The trial judge told them that he would enter a 60-day Settlement Order of Dismissal and invited them to return to him if problems arose during that time period which impeded consummation of the settlement. Within a day such problems a

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON REMAND PONSOR, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This motor vehicle tort case was dismissed, in accordance with a warning contained in a written court order, sixty days after counsel announced it was settled. Three weeks after this sixty-day cut-off, plaintiffs counsel attempted to reopen the case, eventually arguing that his failure to foresta

Lanzinger, J., dissenting. {¶ 60} I respectfully dissent. I would hold, as did the court of appeals, that although the court imparted erroneous information, Clark understood that his maximum penalty was a life sentence. He also understood that there was a possibility of parole. Even though the trial court made confusing statements about postrelease control, these statements did not misinform Cl

MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Docket No. 16) PONSOR, District Judge. On January 18, 1996 this court issued its Settlement Order of Dismissal of this diversity-based auto tort case. The order stated as follows: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without costs and without prejudice to the right, upon good

845 A.2d 16 (2003) 155 Md. App. 634 M. Raul GARCIA v. FOULGER PRATT DEVELOPMENT, INC., et al. F.P. Rockville Limited Partnership v. M. Raul Garcia. No. 1483, September Term, 2002. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. December 4, 2003. Reconsideration Denied March 8, 2004. *21

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-2284 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Edgar T. Pratt