Cases

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, againstAliyyah Comerford, Appellant. Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Matthew A. Sciarrino, Jr., J.), rendered May 2, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of attempted endangering the welfare of a child and imposed sentence. ORDERED that the j

PER CURIAM. On 7 June 1994, this Court issued its opinion reversing the entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action. See State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Young, 115 N.C. App. 68, 443 S.E.2d 756 (1994). In so doing, we held invalid and unenforceable a provision in the underinsured motorist coverage clause of automo-. bile liability insurance policies issued by plaintiff which atte

PER CURIAM. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of the authority of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mabe, 342 N.C. 482, 467 S.E.2d 34 (1996). VACATED AND REMANDED.

MARTIN, Judge. Plaintiff brought this declaratory judgment action seeking a determination of its obligations under the underinsured motorist coverage provisions of automobile insurance policies issued to its insureds, defendants Andrew Jesse Young (hereinafter “Young”) and Mary Cortez Wimberly (hereinafter “Wimberly”). The parties stipulated to the following facts. On 26 January 1990, Nicholas Young (“Nicholas”), the minor son

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 99-1741 RICHARD COMERFORD, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. U.S. DEPT. OF ARMY, Defendant, Appellee. ____________________ ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OF MASSACHUSETTS, Defendant

Orders of the County Court of Dutchess county, dismissing indictments, reversed upon the law and the facts and motions to dismiss indictments denied, on authority of People v. Rivello (39 App. Div. 454). Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Seeger, JJ., concur.

Mr. Justice Baume delivered the opinion of the court. This is a suit by appellees against appellant to recover damages alleged to have been occasioned by the act of appellant in wrongfully diverting the flow of surface water from his land to and upon the land of appellees, whereby the land of appellees was rendered unfit for tillage and the crops growing thereon were injure

This suit was brought by John Augustin Comerford, a minor, by his father, John Comerford, as next friend, against Oral DeCamp and Charles Lancer, copartners, and Carl Kohler, as defendants. The plaintiff alleged in his petition that he was 12 years old at the time of the accident out of which this suit arose, and that, on the 22nd day of October, 1922, he was riding with his father in a milk delivery wagon in the city of Blackwell, Okla., proceeding east on Paden avenue along the south side;

Determination of police commissioner unanimously confirmed, and certiorari proceeding dismissed, without costs. No opinion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ.

Gadsby, P. J. This is an action of tort in which the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for property damage against both of the defendants, the declarations containing one count each for property damage as against the owner in one case and as against the operator in the other case. The defendant’s answer contains a general denial and allegations of contributory negligence. At the trial the

CHATFIEED, District Judge. The complainant is a corporation of the state of New Jersey, which for the last five years has been performing a contract made on or about the 31st day of May, 1902, with an organization, the International Union of Steam Engineers, of which the defendant is president. This contract was for the publication of a trade journal for the defendant,, and contained numerous details defining the obligations upon

Loring, J. The plaintiff was hired by the defendant to put up an addition to his planing mill about six weeks before the accident here complained of. He testified that he was invited by the defendant to use the machinery in the mill whenever he had work to be done which could be done more quickly on one of the machines. On the day in question he had occasion to square up a piece of quarter round board and undertook to use the def

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT D. MARIANI, District Judge. I. Introduction Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) on Plaintiffs claims for breach of contract (Count I) and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing (Count II). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part. II.

KEVIN GROSS, U.S.B.J. *554INTRODUCTION The Court is issuing its opinion in this preference adversary proceeding. On September 7, 2011 (the "Petition Date"), NewPage Corporation1 ("NewPage") and its affiliates (together with NewPage, the "Debtors") filed petitions for relief under Cha

MEMORANDUM OPINION KEVIN GROSS, U.S.B.J. OVERVIEW Pirinate Consulting Group, Litigation Trustee (the “Trustee”) for the NP Creditor Litigation Trust, has filed an avoidance action against the Maryland Department of the Environment (“MDE”) and seeks to avoid three separate payments as preferences under section 547(b) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”). Both parties have

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, § § No. 528, 2015 Defendant Below-Appellant, § § Court Below: Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § RALPH ALLAN CEPEC and § C.A. No. N15C-02-184 SANDRA FAYE CEPEC,

BACHARACH, Circuit Judge. Mr. Alexander Cerveny was bom over twenty years ago with birth defects. 1 Alex- ' *1095 ander and Ms parents attribute these birth defects to Mrs. Cerveny’s use of Clomid (a fertility drug) in 1992, before she b

KELLY, Circuit Judge. In this interlocutory appeal, Ronald Per-ras contests the denial of his motion to certify a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. 1 Though we follow a different analysis than the district court, 2 we conclude that the cour

FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 11, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court VICKIE SCHMIDT PARSON; PATRICIA SCALES;

OPINION OF THE COURT Pigott, J. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has asked us to determine whether this State recognizes an *445independent equitable cause of action for medical monitoring and, if so, what the elements, appropriate statute of limitations and accrual date are for that particular cause of action.