Cases

ACCEPTED 02-15-00111-cv SECOND COURT OF APPEALS FORT WORTH, TEXAS 12/14/2015 4:

104 P.3d 905 (2004) 106 Hawai`i 318 Thomas R. KINKAID, William Kowalski, Henri P. Kostermans, Ryoko Kostermans, Walter S. Leong, Terri Leong, Richard A. Moody, Ernest W. Tuttle, Pamela Tuttle, Gertrud Eberwein, Bruce F. Connell, Ernesto V. Castro, et al., Pearl R. Groves, Glenn H. Meyer, Leo A. Young, Jeanette M. Young, Glenn R. Oakes, Cynthia R. Oakes, David J. Novick, Carol L. Novick, Peter L. Chan, Terry T. Chan, Alfonso J. Bae

[Cite as Martin v. Wandling, 2016-Ohio-3032.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GALLIA COUNTY BRYANT C. MARTIN, A Minor, : By and Through Alana N. Fraley, his : Case No. 15CA4 Mother and Next Friend, : : Plaintiff-Ap

378 So.2d 783 (1979) THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Ernest M. BREED, Respondent. No. 55473. Supreme Court of Florida. November 29, 1979. Rehearing Denied January 30, 1980. Allen R. Smith, Bar Counsel, Winter Haven, and David G. McGunegle, Branch Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, for complainant. Monterey Campbell, of Campbell, Dunlap, Coward &

55 F.3d 362 FEDERAL HOUSING PARTNERS IV, an Iowa Limited Partnership;Sunflower Plaza Tower Company, a Kansas Corporation;Ridgeway Associates, an Iowa Limited Partnership; WaterlooProperties, an Iowa Limited Partnership; Cedar FallsAssociates, an Iowa Limited Partnership; CrossroadsProperties, an Iowa Limited Partnership; Federal HousingPartners II, an Iowa Limited Partnership; Chamber ofCommerce of Sioux City, Iowa,

630 F.Supp. 1115 (1986) David BATCHELDER; Elaine Batchelder, individually, and on behalf of the Shareholders; That & Other Stuff, Inc. v. NORTHERN FIRE LITES, INC.; Cyril J. Gundling; Vivian Gundling; Ed Warburton; William Putnam. Civ. No. 85-447-D. United States District Court, D. New Hampshire. March 20, 1986. *1116 William

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ERIC DOUGLAS GUILBEAU, et al., Plaintiffs, v. C.A. No. 2024-0968-JTL FOOTPRINT INTERNATIONAL HOLDCO, INC., CLEVELAND AVENUE, LLC, FOOTPRINT CA LLC, CA OPPORTUNITY FUND I LLC, CLEVELAND MANOR INVESTMENTS II LLC, CA FOOD I FUND LLC, OLYMPUS GROWTH FUND VII, L.P., OLYMPUS GROWTH FUND VII PARALLEL, L.P., MOVENDO CAPITAL, B.V., ZENCAP HOLDINGS FP, LLC, DON THOMPSON, MANU BETTEGOWDA,

251 Minn. 277 (1958) 87 N.W. (2d) 660 RALPH WORMSBECKER v. DONOVAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF MINNESOTA. S.J. KRANNAK, DEFENDANT IN INTERPLEADER. No. 36,771. Supreme Court of Minnesota. January 17, 1958. William E. MacGregor, Benedict Deinard, Guesmer, Carson, MacGregor *278 & Clifford,

381 F.Supp. 260 (1974) David F. BOLGER et al., Plaintiffs, v. LAVENTHOL, KREKSTEIN, HORWATH & HORWATH, et al., Defendants. No. 73 Civ. 5063. United States District Court, S. D. New York. June 26, 1974. Reargument July 29, 1974. *261 Walsh & Frisch, New York City, for plaintiffs; E. Roger Frisch, Robert D.

45 F.Supp.2d 1164 (1999) WICHITA CLINIC, P.A., and Integrated Healthcare Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. COLUMBIA/HCA HEALTHCARE CORP., and HCA Health Services of Kansas, Inc., Defendants. No. 96-1336-JTM. United States District Court, D. Kansas. March 31, 1999. Order Denying Reconsideration May 11, 1999. *1165

OPINION PER CURIAM: This income tax refund case, involving the years 1951-1954, was referred to Trial Commissioner Lloyd Fletcher with directions to make appropriate factual findings and to submit his recommendation for a conclusion of law. At this stage there remain two entirely separate issues in the case, and the commissioner’s report contains an opinion,

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge TAMM. TAMM, Circuit Judge: This case arises out of the: plaintiff-appel-lee Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC or Commission) successful injunctive action, against defendant-appellant S. Mort Zimmerman in the United States District Court for the District

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. The issue in this action is whether landlords to whom the government paid subsidies were entitled to automatic rental adjustments, even if market studies showed that such adjustments resulted in rents higher than those in the local market. In light of Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1898, 123 L.Ed.2d 572 (1993), we conclude that they are not so entitled and af

77 B.R. 843 (1987) In re INDEPENDENT CLEARING HOUSE COMPANY, a Trust, Debtor. In re UNIVERSAL CLEARING HOUSE COMPANY, a Trust, aka National Clearing House Company, a Trust, Debtor. In re ACCOUNTING SERVICES COMPANY, a Trust, Debtor. Robert D. MERRILL, Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. David ABBOTT, et al., Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Appellees. Nos. C-84-0927W, C-84-0928J and consolidated ca

CARRINGTON, J. The first point relied upon by the appellant’s counsel was, that the writing signed “Samuel Mathews” could not be considered as a patent, and could not transfer the right of the crown to the'lands therein described. It is certainly very informal, as it might well be expected to be at a time, when this country was in its infancy. But I am satisfied, that it possesses all the substantial parts of a grant, and that i

CARRINGTON, J. The first point relied upon by the appellant’s counsel was, that the writing signed “Samuel Mathews” could not be considered as a patent, and could not transfer the right of the crown to the'lands therein described. It is certainly very informal, as it might well be expected to be at a time, when this country was in its infancy. But I am satisfied, that it possesses all the substantial parts of a grant, and that i

CARRINGTON, J. The first point relied upon by the appellant’s counsel was, that the writing signed “Samuel Mathews” could not be considered as a patent, and could not transfer the right of the crown to the'lands therein described. It is certainly very informal, as it might well be expected to be at a time, when this country was in its infancy. But I am satisfied, that it possesses all the substantial parts of a grant, and that i

Benson, J. delivered the opinion of the court. There may he a judgment, for the insufficiency of the declaration or plea, as the case may be, against the party, though there may be a verdict for him. If the party for whom a verdict is found, will not move for judgment, the other party may pray for judgment against himself; but the entry on the record will still be as if the judgment had been on the prayer of the party for whom

449 F.Supp.2d 1 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, and Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, and National African American Tobacco Prevention Network, Intervenors, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., (f/k/a Philip Morris, Inc.), et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 99-2496(GK). United States Distri