Cases

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens *1086County (Cullen, J.), dated June 21, 2007, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff David Cornelius on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

ALARCON, Circuit Judge: Alexander has appealed the judgment dismissing his amended petition for a habe-as corpus and the order denying his motion for reconsideration. In his amended petition for habeas corpus relief, Alexander sought a hearing to challenge “the legality of the detainer lodged against him

OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, granting relief to Appellee, Cornelius Alexander Andrews, pursuant to his petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). 1 Upon review, we affirm. On October

229 S.W.3d 731 (2007) Kimberly Michele ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 04-06-00082-CR. Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio. May 2, 2007. *734 Cornelius N. Cox, Law Office of Cornelius N. Cox, San Antonio, for appellant. Daniel Thornberry, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, for appellee.

This case involves a boundary line dispute between coterminous landowners. The record reveals the following pertinent facts: In 1973 Albert Drake and his wife, Annette Hood Drake, purchased certain property in Blount County, Alabama, from Mrs. Drake's father. Mrs. Drake's father and her brother farmed the Drakes' property and the property to the south, which was owned by Arizona Phillips. They ceased farming the properties in the mid-80s. In 1987 Jeffrey Cornelius purcha

Case: 21-20654 Document: 00516528578 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 31, 2022

96 S.W.3d 617 (2002) Robert TILLER and Wife, Mary Tiller; R. Scott Nevins and Wife, Mrs. R. Scott Nevins, Appellants, v. LAKE ALEXANDER PROPERTIES, LTD., Appellee. No. 06-01-00169-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana. Submitted May 3, 2002. Decided December 23, 2002. Rehearing Overruled February 4, 2003.

CORNELIUS, Chief Justice, dissenting. I believe the error in this case was clearly harmless, so I respectfully dissent to the reversal. Using the tests for harmless error set out in the majority opinion, I make these observations: • The integrity of the process was not compromised. The communication between the juror and the bailiff was not about the merits of the case or about any ultimate

SYLLABUS This syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Court and may not summarize all portions of the opinion. State v. Cornelius C. Cohen (A-50-21) (084493) Argued January 4, 2023 -- Decided June 22, 2023 PIERRE-LOUIS, J., writing for a unanimous Court. In this appeal, the Court considers whethe

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______ No. 23-2476 ______ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CORNELIUS GREEN, Appellant ______ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

176 B.R. 715 (1995) In re ALEXANDER'S INC., et al., Debtors. Bankruptcy Nos. 92-B-42704(CB) to 92-B-42720(CB). United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York. January 6, 1995. As Amended January 11, 1995. *716 *717 Shearman & Sterling by Eileen Wishnia, New York City, for debtor.</

76 Wn. App. 425 (1994) 886 P.2d 231 KATHY ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. FOOD SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL, Respondents. No. 34651-2-I. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One. December 27, 1994. *426 Kathy Alexander, pro se, and John R. Alexander and Alder Giersch, P.S., for ap

BREYER, Circuit Judge. This case raises the question of whether a federal statute providing a special federal payment to certain disabled persons (those with “essential persons”) permits the state to reduce correspondingly its own state payments dollar for dollar. We find that the federal statute was specifically intended to give the states this authority, and we therefore rev

887 S.W.2d 182 (1994) Sue Ann WINDHAM, Appellant, v. ALEXANDER, WESTON & POEHNER, P.C., FKA Alexander & Weston, P.C., Appellee. No. 06-94-00053-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana. October 18, 1994. Rehearing Overruled November 15, 1994. *183 Robert Huckabee, Francis & Huckabee, Dallas, for appel

JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT This matter is before the Court on the cross Motions for Summary Judgment1 by Defendants, F. King Alexander, Damon Andrew, A.G. Monaco, and Gaston Reinoso ("Defendants") and Plaintiff, Teresa Buchanan ("Plaintiff"). The parties have filed Oppositions2 and Replies3 to the

Spain, J. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Otsego County) to review a determination of respondent City of Oneonta Common Council which denied petitioners’ application for a special use permit. Petitioners are the resident owners of a single-family Victorian-era home on Draper Street in the City of Oneonta, Otsego County, which they ren

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia ATLANTA,____________________ February 26, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A21A0905. CORNELIUS TODD v. U.S. BANK TRUST, N. A. AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST. This dispossessory proceeding originated in magistrate court, and the parties consented to the transfer of the case to superior court. On September 11, 20

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS <

Digitally signed by Reporter of Decisions Reason: I attest to the Illinois Official Reports accuracy and integrity of this

PER CURIAM. The appellees having filed a confession of error in this cause, the order dated September 2, 1975 dismissing plaintiffs’ cause of action with prejudice be and the same is hereby reversed, and this matter is hereby returned to the trial court for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded.