Cases

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-1673 ___________________________ Jessica Vanicek, Personal Representative of the Estate of Ryan T. Vanicek Plaintiff - Appellant Thomas Vanicek, Individually, and Parents of the Deceased, Ryan T. Vanicek; Karen Vanicek, Individually, and Parents of

McCarthy, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered February 10, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree a

CHARLES R. RICHEY, District Judge. Plaintiff, National Treasury Employees Union (“NTEU”), seeks declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief, alleging that defendant Donald Devine, Director of the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), violated the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 by failing to post the text of proposed regulations in federal offices in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 1103(b)(2)(A) and by promulgating regulations at

CHARLES R. RICHEY, District Judge. Before the court are cross motions for summary judgment concerning the validity of a Federal Personnel Management (“FPM”) letter issued by the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) relating to *961the payment of travel and per diem expenses for employee negotiators representing unions in collective bargaining. The National Treasur

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO . 11-0332 444444444444 ROBERT MASTERSON, MARK BROWN, GEORGE BUTLER, CHARLES WESTBROOK, RICHEY OLIVER, CRAIG PORTER, SHARON WEBER, JUNE SMITH, RITA BAKER, STEPHANIE PEDDY, BILLIE RUTH HODGES, DALLAS CHRISTIAN, AND THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE G OOD SHEPHERD , PETITIONERS,

Justice JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice HECHT, Justice GREEN, Justice GUZMAN, and Justice DEVINE joined, and in parts I, II, III-A, and V of which Justice WILLETT and Justice BOYD joined. The question before us is what happens to the property when a majority of the membership of a local church votes to withdraw from the larger religious body of which it ha

404 F.Supp.2d 1051 (2005) ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION; Video Software Dealers Association; and Illinois Retail Merchants Association, Plaintiffs, v. Rod BLAGOJEVICH, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois; Lisa Madigan, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Illinois; and Richard A. Devine, in his official capacity as State's Attorney of Cook County, Defendants. No. 05 C 42

People v Montpetit (2019 NY Slip Op 01861) People v Montpetit 2019 NY Slip Op 01861 Decided on March 14, 2019 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary L

Devine, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County (McGinty, J.), entered September 17, 2014, which, among other things, partially granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to modify a prior order of visitation. Petitioner is the father of a child born in 2007 and, in a 2012 consent order, Famil

Lynch, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Mc-Donough, J.), entered March 2, 2015 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request to participate in the family reunion program. In 1994, petitioner and two accomplices were

Matter of Sue S. v Courtney T. (2019 NY Slip Op 08459) Matter of Sue S. v Courtney T. 2019 NY Slip Op 08459 Decided on November 21, 2019 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bur

[Cite as State v. Daniels, 2024-Ohio-1536.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT CRAWFORD COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 3-23-35 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. KENJI DANIELS, OPINION DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court

Matter of St. Lawrence County Support Collection Unit v Morrow (2020 NY Slip Op 03432) Matter of St. Lawrence County Support Collection Unit v Morrow 2020 NY Slip Op 03432 Decided on June 18, 2020 Appellate Division, Third Department

PAUL G. BYRON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This cause is before the Court on Defendant United Airlines, Inc.'s Motion to Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Devin Datta. (Doc. 56). Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition (Doc. 57), and the matter is now ripe for resolution. After having reviewed the pleadings and the deposition testimony of Dr. Datta (Doc. 60), the Defendant's Motion is due to be denied. I.

Matter of Brent O. v Lisa P. (2018 NY Slip Op 03187) Matter of Brent O. v Lisa P. 2018 NY Slip Op 03187 Decided on May 3, 2018 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursua

Military pay dispute; claim by dental surgeon for monetary relief stemming from the Navy’s alleged miscalculation of his obligated service period; retention bonus; 37 U.S.C. § 301e; incentive special pay; 37 U.S.C. § 302b OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Judge. In this military pay case, plaintiff Robert M. Laughlin challenges the determina

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 13-719C (E-Filed: March 1, 2018) ) TIMOTHY J. HATMAKER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Military Disability Retirement Pay; v. ) Substanti

[Cite as State v. Richardson, 2014-Ohio-3541.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT SENECA COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 13-13-54 v. CHARLES V. RICHARDSON, OPINION DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 13-13-55

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL DANIEL CUERO, No. 12-55911 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 3:08-cv-02008-BTM-WMC MATTHEW CATE, Respondent-Appellee. OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding Argued a

WHATLEY, Judge. Robert C. Collins and Phyllis Collins appeal a final judgment entered after a bench trial in favor of Brenda Fay Bannon and Otis Scott Jeffrey. The final judgment found that a real estate agreement between the parties was unenforceable because there was no meeting of the minds. We agree with the Collinses that the trial court improperly based the final judgment on this issue where neither party raised it.