Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “DIANNE E TAYLOR”
Taylor v. Mystic Lands, Inc.public domain
AFFIRMED.
Shelby Woods v. Dianne Woodspublic domain
Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 469 Reason: I attest to the ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS accuracy and integrity of this document Date: 2021-07-15 10:55:59 DIVISION I Foxit PhantomPDF Version: No. CV-19-950 9.7.5 Opinion Delivered: October 7, 2020 SHELBY WOODS APPEA
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN ON REMAND NO. 03-21-00305-CV Dianne Hensley, Appellant v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct; Gary L. Steel, in his official capacity as Chair of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct; Ken Wise, in his official capacity as Vice-Chair of the State Commission on Judicial C
Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 22-1145 ══════════ Dianne Hensley, Petitioner, v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct et al., Respondents ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Third Distr
KONDAUR CAPITAL CORPORATION v. LUNN, DIANNE L.public domain
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 454 CA 15-00733 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. NNPL TRUST SERIES 2012-1, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DIANNE L. LUNN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. (APPEAL NO. 2.) DIANNE L. LUNN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE. JOHN PINCUS, NEW YORK CITY, FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. Appeal fr
Taylor v. bridgestone/firestonepublic domain
*********** The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Stanback. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence. Accordingly, the Full Commission reverses the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner and enters the following Opinion and Award. *********** The Full Commission finds a
Brad Michael Ryes v. Dianne Richard Rosspublic domain
Opinion issued August 20, 2019 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-18-00693-CV ——————————— BRAD MICHAEL RYES, Appellant V. DIANNE RICHARD ROSS, Appellee
DiMaruo v. Taylorpublic domain
[1] ORDER [2] This matter was before the Supreme Court on an order issued to the defendant to appear and show cause why her appeal should not be denied and dismissed. In this case the defendant had appealed from a Superior Court order granting plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. The plaintiffs brought an action seeking the discharge of a mortgage recorded against their property. [3] After hearing counsel for the parties in oral argument and after reviewing
Lynda Dianne Robinette v. State of Mississippipublic domain
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2014-KM-01649-COA LYNDA DIANNE ROBINETTE A/K/A LYNDA APPELLANT ROBINETTE A/K/A LYNDA ROBINETTE- MCNAIR v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/20/2014 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. WILLIAM E. CHAPMAN III COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COUR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 18, 2016 Session DIANNE ELIZABETH LUTZAK, TRUSTEE OF THE DIANNE ELIZABETH LUTZAK FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST v. PHOENIX AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, L.P. ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Williamson County No. 43113 James G. Martin III, Chancellor ___________________________________
United States v. Phillips, Jarrode E.public domain
HARLINGTON WOOD, JR., Circuit Judge. Following jury trials, defendants-appellants were convicted on numerous counts relating to their involvement with the Dawg Life street gang in South Bend, Indiana, and now appeal. I. BACKGROUND On April 19, 1999, after a three-week trial, a jury found three of the defendants guilty as follows:
Taylor v. Sara Lee Knit Productspublic domain
The issue of costs was dealt with in the Full Commission Opinion and Award filed on 8 September 1995 which assessed costs to the defendants; therefore, plaintiff's motion with respect to costs is a moot issue. Further, it is not necessary to address plaintiff's motion for interest to be paid from the date of the initial hearing in that payment of interest is mandatory under the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-86.2. Therefore, the sole remainin
Taylor v. Taylorpublic domain
991 So.2d 228 (2008) Alan W. TAYLOR v. Neressa TAYLOR. 2060844. Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama. March 14, 2008. *230 Connie Cooper, Phenix City, for appellant. Dianne James Davis, Alexander City, for appellee. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge. Alan W. Taylor ("the father") and Neressa Taylor ("the mother") were d
Taylor v. Sara Lee Knit Productspublic domain
Plaintiff's motion to dismiss based upon defendant's untimely filing of the Industrial Commission Form 44 is denied. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal which specifically set forth its exceptions and defendant timely filed its brief, each action putting plaintiff on notice of defendant's grounds for appeal. Although, the Form 44 was more detailed than the letter of appeal, the plaintiff, who additionally timely received defendant's brief, nonetheless was put on adequate notice of the s
PER CURIAM: Appellants Melvin Bradley and Kevin Calma (collectively “Appellants”) incurred medical debts at North Alabama Urology, P.C. (Urology) and University of Alabama at Birmingham Health System West (UAB West), respectively. Because Appellants failed to pay their debts, Urology and UAB West referred the accounts to appellee Fr
Burns v. B E K Construction Companypublic domain
The parties have informed the undersigned that they have reached a settlement of this matter. No agreement has been submitted to the Commission at the time of the filing of this Order. In view of the foregoing, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties have 30 days in which to submit their settlement agreement in this case to the undersigned. No costs are assessed at this time. FOR THE FULL COMMISSION S/ ________________
Taylor-Bertling v. Foleypublic domain
MEMORANDUM DECISION ECKERSTROM, Judge: ¶ 1 Appellants Dianne Taylor-Bertling and Richard Bertling (the Taylor-Bertlings) brought suit against appellee Theresa Foley alleging negligence. The jury found in favor of Foley and judgment was entered against the Taylor-Bertlings. The Taylor-Bertlings now appeal, asserting six different claims of trial error. For the following reasons, we affirm.
City of Boston v. Back Bay Cultural Ass'npublic domain
Lynch, J. This case raises the issue whether Ordinances, Title 14 § 430A (1979) (ordinance) of the city of Boston (city), restricting the hours of operation of establishments holding entertainment licenses, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. A Superior Court judge determined that the ordinance did not violate the First Amendment. The defendant Back Bay Cultural Association, Inc. (Back Bay), appealed
United States v. Anthony Taylorpublic domain
OPINION MARBLEY, District Judge. DefendanL-Appellant, Anthony Taylor, appeals his conviction and sentence of 262 months, following a jury trial for one count of possession of a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j), and one count of felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Taylor argues that: (1) the district cou
Perretta, J. Seeking to operate a day care center from an underutilized building on its Brighton property, the plaintiff sought a conditional use permit. The zoning administrator’s denial of the permit was affirmed by the board of appeal of Bos*705ton, and the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to St. 1956, c. 665, § 11. Prior to trial, the parties