Cases

OPINION MICHAEL, Bankruptcy Judge. At issue is a default judgment revoking the debtor’s discharge. The debtor does not argue that the default judgment was entered in violation of applicable statute, rule, or case law. Instead, she contends that grounds exist to vacate the default judgment, and asks this Court to do so. She has not asked the bankruptcy court to vacate the default judgment. Both parties to the

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eric Emanuel Taylor appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint against a state court judge for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). On appeal, we confine our review to the

MERRITT, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which MOORE, J., joined. BOGGS, J, (pp. 854-855), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment of the court as expressed in Part II.D. OPINION MERRITT, Circuit Judge. In this case the respondent, warden Pamela Withrow (hereafter “State”), appeals the district court’s grant of a writ of habeas corpus to petitioner Eric Taylo

MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN D. BATES, United States District Judge Plaintiff Melanie Taylor brings this action against defendants Eric Shinseki, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), Mary Andrus, a/k/a Mary Charles, and Barbara Nugent. Taylor asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; unde

PIETSCH, Judge: Raymond C. Taylor, who served in the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ) during 1968 and 1969, appeals through counsel a December 10, 2012, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision that denied entitlement to service connection for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (lymphoma) based on a finding that the evidence was sufficient to rebut, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d), a presumption of service connection based on exposure to h

EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge: In this qualified immunity case, the question on appeal is whether the district court erred in holding that—in the absence of video evidence—eyewitness testimony should not be considered for summary judgment purposes until subject to cross examination. Because we conclude that it did, we REVERSE. I.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Defendants’ First Motion for Summary Judgment as to Claim for Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage and Memorandum in Support Thereof, filed December 21, 2016 (Doc. 136)(“Defendants’ Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage MSJ”); (ii) th

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent William Eric Taylor has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Taylor has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record

FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Based on evidence recovered during.a police search of his apartment, defendant Eric Kelly was charged with possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); and possession of a firearm by a felon, in viola

WYNN, Judge. Our Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff who is not insured under an insurance *637policy, and who cannot evidence damage caused by the insurer, may not recover from the insurer damages which exceed the liability coverage for the insured.1 Here, Plaintiff brought a claim against the insurer to recove

BACHARACH, Circuit Judge. Mr. Patipan Nakkhumpun, the lead plaintiff in this securities class action, represents investors who purchased securities in Delta Petroleum Corporation between March 11, 2010, and November 9, 2011 (the class period). The defendants are former officers and a board member of Delta who allegedly violated § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1

DANA, J. [¶ 1] Mary Jo Taylor appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Portland, Horton, J.) dismissing her suit on a promissory note to have been supplied by Eric A. Taylor in accordance with the terms of the couple’s divorce judgment. Mary contends that the court erred in concluding that her exclusive remedy was a motion for post-judgment relief pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure SOlk).

MEMORANDUM OPINION REGGIE B. WALTON, District Judge. The plaintiff, Pamela Taylor, brings this civil action against defendant Eric Clark in his official capacity as a Deputy United States Marshal based on his alleged tortious acts. See Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 18-32. Currently before the Court is defendant Clark’s motion t

OPINION FARRIS, Senior Circuit Judge: Knapp is a California state prisoner who alleges various civil rights claims against prison and other state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The general theory behind these claims is that prison officials began a long course of retaliatory conduct, of which the governmental actors were aware, because of Knapp’s m

MURDOCK, Justice (concurring specially). I concur in the denial of Eric DeWayne Taylor’s petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals in regard to that court’s decision in Taylor v. Newman, 93 So.3d 108 (Aa.Civ.App.2011). In particular, I concur with the statement of this Court that the denial of the petition should not be read by the bench and bar as an approval of the analysis

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 JAMES 0. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants Marty L. Cope, Arnold *1025J. Real, B. Ray Willis, Thomas Fowler, Larry Delgado, and the New Mexico Racing Commission’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and Memorandum in Support, filed November

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 175 OPINION An appeal following a guilty or no contest plea which challenges the validity of the plea is not operative unless the defendant obtains a certificate of probable cause pursuant to Penal Code section 1237.5.1<

JENKINS, J. Dissents and Assigns Reasons. _JjI respectfully dissent and would reverse the Civil Service Commission decision. In my view, the Commission disregarded the evidence supporting the legal cause for the disciplinary action taken by the Appointing Authority — the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD). “The legal basis for any change in disciplinary action can only be that sufficient

OPINION JAMES KNOLL GARDNER, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY OF DECISION......................................................172 JURISDICTION................................................................172 VENUE.................................................................

MEMORANDUM OPINION ANDREWS, District Judge. Plaintiff Howard Taylor filed derivative shareholder claims for breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment against both current and former Directors and Officers of Aviat Networks, Inc. (D.I. 1). The Defendants are current Directors Charles D. Kissner, William A. Hasler, Clifford H. Higgerson, Edward F. Thompson, Jame