Cases

Mr. Justice Magruder delivered the opinion of the court: First—The court below refused to allow the information in the nature of quo warranto to be filed upon the motion or petition of the State’s attorney. Under the practice in this State in relation to quo warranto, two courses may be pursued by the court to which application is made for leave to file the infor

The plaintiffs have appealed from a decision of the defendant board, entered on or about February 3, 1971, involving a vacant seventeen-acre parcel of land located on Poquonock Avenue, Windsor. I The defendant's ruling sustained the action of the Windsor building inspector denying the plaintiffs' application on December 9, 1970, for a site development permit, hereinafter called "permit," for their property. The application was filed

Levine, J. The plaintiffs have appealed from a decision of the defendant board, entered on or about February 3, 1971, involving a vacant seventeen-acre parcel of land located on Poquonoek Avenue, Windsor. I The defendant’s ruling sustained the action of the Windsor building inspector denying the plaintiffs’ application on December 9, 1970, for a site development permit, hereinafter called “pe

DATE: 07/17/2018 PENNSYLVANIA CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PAGE: 1 TIME: 14:31:12 NON-COMPLIANT LAWYERS USER ID: jilgenfr ACTIVE REPORT: ctrk_crt SORT BY : COUNTY CODE, LAWYER LAST NAME CRITERIA: COMPLIANCE YEAR END DATE = 12312017 GROUP 3, REINST FEE ASSESSED _______________________________________________________

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ Nos. 05-4181/06-2287 ___________ Jake Pittari, * * Appellee, * * Appeals from the United States v. *

*1058 RILEY, Circuit Judge. American Eagle Airlines, Inc. (American Eagle), appeals from a jury verdict in favor of Jake Pittari (Pittari) on Ms claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990(ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213. American Eagle argues Pittari failed to prove unlawful discrimination

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

*662Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court, First District, of Illinois, denied.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from the Appellate Court for the First District, on leave granted, to review judgments in the superior court of Cook county in two consolidated cases, one on behalf of Charles F. McKinley and the other on behalf of Samuel Heller. The cases are identical, except as to dates and amounts, and are both determined by the same principles of law. Plaintiff McKinley had a judgment of $15,828.30 and Heller one for $3803.26 in the superior court, while on appeal the finding was in fav

Mr. Justice Matchett delivered the opinion of the court. Plaintiffs McKinley and Heller were associate judges of the municipal court of Chicago. They sued to recover portions of their salaries alleged to be unpaid. The complaint in each case contained three counts. The first claimed for the salary of the office during the period of time when it was, in fact, occu

Mr. Commissioner Partlow reported this opinion: Appellees the Chicago and Western Indiana Railroad Company and the Wabash Railway Company filed their petition with the Illinois Commerce Commission for an order granting them permission to sell and convey to appellee Harry P. Munns for $340,000 to be paid to the former company and $110,000 to be paid to the latte

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge. Albert Ginsberg (Ginsberg) appeals the April 4,1991 decision of the General Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board), which dismissed his claim for lack of standing under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 602, 609(a)(1) (1988) (CDA). Ginsberg v. General Servs. Admin., 91-2 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 23,784 (1991). Because the Board based

The foregoing opinion reported by Mr. Commissioner Partlow is hereby adopted as the opinion of the court, and judgment is entered in accordance therewith. Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Windes delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellee, Daisy E. Wilson, a married daughter of one Elef Danielson, an ex-police officer of Chicago, filed her bill in the Circuit Court of Cook county, against the Policemen’s Benevolent Association of Chicago, Peter J. Danielson, a brother of said Elef, and Norwegian Old People’s Home Society, by which she sought to se

Me. Justice Windes delivered the opinion of the court. The first and only question which we deem it necessary to consider is whether the court had any jurisdiction of the parties and subject-matter of said cause on the 4th of August, 1900, which was more than ninety days after the entry of the order dismissing the cause April 25,1900. The question of jurisdiction

Mr. Justice Adams delivered the opinion of the court. Plaintiff in error was convicted in the Criminal Court of Cook County of obtaining, by false pretenses, the signature of 0. M. Barnes and C. M. Barnes & Co., a corporation, to a promissory note for the sum of $500, and was sentenced to confinement in the county jail for thirty days, and to pay a fine of $1,000 and cost

This is an appeal to review a judgment for an award made by a jury in the superior court of Cook county for the taking of the property of appellant in a proceeding for the widening of Western avenue between Fullerton and North avenues, in the city of Chicago. Appellant's property consists of a tract of land almost triangular in shape, the west line of which is fifty feet in length and abuts on the east line of Western avenue. The northeasterly line extends from the north end of the wes

Appellant seeks review of a decree of the circuit court of Cook county dismissing his bill for want of equity. The bill charges that some time prior to April 15, 1920, as a result of complainant's efforts as real estate broker, one Herman Kaplan and appellee contracted to purchase a certain *Page 50 apartment building from one Harry L. Irwin for a total sum of $133,500, of which $30,000 was to be paid in cash, the mortgage already on the premises of $23,0

STONE, District Judge. These appeals are from orders entered by the District Court granting petitions to vacate orders entered at a prior term of the court dismissing for want of prosecution two suits instituted by one George H. Martin, one against the Superior Fire Insurance Company and the other against the Camden Fire Insurance Company. There is no dispute as to the facts in these cases, and the same questions of law are in