Cases

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Daniel Williams severely injured his hand in a machine that he was operating for his employer. He brought this products liability action against the machine’s manufacturer, REP International, and the manufacturer’s United States distributor, REP Corporation. The district court entered summary judgment for REP Corporation because it did not sell, lease or ot

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

164 F.Supp.2d 794 (2001) In re: M/V DANIELLE BOUCHARD No. CIV. A. 98-485, CIV. A. 98-923, CIV. A. 00-692. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. April 2, 2001. *795 George Moore Gilly, William Joseph Riviere, Phelps Dunbar, LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Danielle M. Bouchard Corp., Brouchard Coastwise Management Corp. David S. B

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

SANDSTROM, Justice. (¶ 1] Ellen Williams appeals from a divorce judgment dividing the marital estate between her and Ivan Williams and awarding her spousal support. Ellen Williams argues the district court erred in the duration and amount of spousal support awarded to her. We affirm. I [¶ 2] Ellen Williams and Ivan Williams were

HUMPHREY, J. [¶ 1] Louise M. Macul appeals from a judgment entered in the District Court (Ellsworth, Romei, J.) granting Daniel J. McLeod’s motion to modify and amending the parties’ original divorce judgment by terminating the spousal support awarded to Macul. Macul contends that the court erred and abused its discretion because it (1) concluded that a sever

BOLGER, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION A grandmother petitioned for visitation with her daughter's four children. After a trial, the superior court denied the petition, finding that the grandmother failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that visitation was in the best interests of the children. The grandmother appeals, arguing that: (1) the superior cou

Opinion VOGEL (C. S.), P. J.— Introduction In this matter the petitioner was convicted of escape pursuant to a plea bargain which included a provision for presentence credit. After the sentence was entered, the Department of Corrections informed the trial court that petitioner is not entitled to presentence credit because petitioner was serving a prior prison sentence when he was sentenc

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered May 18, 2015, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. On a prior appeal, this Court found that plaintiff raised issues of fact as to whether she suffered physical and psychological injuries proximately caused by defendant’s failure to timely repo

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correct

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 16–1650 Filed May 11, 2018 DAVID M. POWERS, Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, George L. Stigler, Judge. Applicant for postconviction relief filed an interlocutory appeal of the district court ruling quashing his subpoena for discovery of police investigative reports and the district cour

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about December 11, 2014, which granted plaintiff Rachel Djeddah’s oral application for an extension of time to comply with the terms of a conditional order of dismissal, same court and Justice, dated August 8, 2014, to the extent of directing plaintiff to serve expert disclosure within 30 days and to withdraw her motion to vacate

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge. Anthony Hill appeals the grant of summary judgment for his former employer, the General Services Administration, in this employment-discrimination lawsuit. He challenges the district court’s conclusion, based on three negative interactions with coworkers, that he was not meeting GSA’s workplace expectations. Because Hill has not made out a prima facie

OPINION OF THE COURT WOLFE, Judge: We address three issues in this appeal. First, we address appellant’s assigned error that the military judge erroneously excluded evidence offered pursuant to Military Rule of Evidence [hereinafter Mil. R. Evid.] 412. The military judge excluded evidence that the victim was in a romantic relationship at the time of the ass

Catherine Peek McEwen, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge THIS PROCEEDING comes before the Court on the United States Trustee's Complaint Under 11 U.S.C. §§ 110 and 526 - 28 against the Defendants, Kirkland D. Carnegie and Carnegie Tax Service, Inc. The United States Trustee alleges that the Defendants have been pro

PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Shannon E. Williams appeals following the distinct court’s1 grant of defendants’ motions to dismiss, or alternatively for summary judgment, in his civil rights suit. Upon careful consideration of the matters Mr. Williams raises on appeal, we find no reversible error. Because an extended discussion would add nothing to the well-reasoned district court determinations at iss

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 1319 CAF 12-02281 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. IN THE MATTER OF DWAYNE CROSS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DANIELLE M. CASWELL, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. ------------------------------------------ IN THE MATTER OF DANIELLE M. CASWELL, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, V DWAYNE CROSS

SANDRA CABRINA JENKINS, Judge. _JjThis is a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Defendants appeal the trial court’s judgment in favor of plaintiff, awarding $83,761 in damages. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 29, 2009, plaintiff, Venus Williams, filed suit against Daniel Mathieu and State

255 P.3d 307 (2011) 2011-NMSC-026 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. Terry WILLIAMS, Defendant-Respondent. No. 32,263. Supreme Court of New Mexico. June 15, 2011. *309 Gary K. King, Attorney General, Nicole Beder, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Petitioner. Jacqueline Cooper