Cases

KENT, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to require the defendant to produce the following: (1) any statement made by Bernard David, Jr. to his insurance company; (2) any statement made by the passenger riding in the car of the defendant, Bernard David, Sr., at the time of the accident complained of; (3) any statements obtained from any other witnesses; (4) any and all reports of investigato

14 B.R. 702 (1981) In re Eula BURSH, Debtor. Sue Ellen WILSON, a widow, Plaintiff, v. Eula BURSH, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. B-79-2485-PHX-RGM, Adv. No. 80-734-RGM. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona. October 9, 1981. *703 Georgia A. Wilder, Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff. Alena Cantor, Phoenix, Ariz., for defend

GRIFFIS, P.J., FOR THE COURT: ¶ 1. The Chancery Court of Madison County granted Randy Archie Springer’s complaint for adverse possession and to confirm and quiet title and denied Charles E. Stasher and Sarah Eula Stasher’s counterclaim to remove cloud on title and to quiet and confirm title by adverse possession.

WESTBROOKS, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶ 1. The executor of the estate of James R. Pounds (Pounds Estate), and heirs individually, appeal the ruling of the Prentiss County Chancery Court. The chancellor reformed the warranty deed of the subject property, finding that the deed mistakenly included property not mutually agreed u

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hinds County; William F. Coleman, Judge. Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and WALKER and BROOM, JJ. AFFIRMED.

HAWKINS, Justice, for the Court: This is an appeal from the Chancery Court of Lincoln County. The complainant-appellant Lois Ruth Wilson and the defendant-appellee Larry Joe Wilson married December 13, 1972. At the time of the marriage he was divorced, and the father of five children from the previous marriage. His former wife had custody of the children, but later Wilson gained custody of three of the chil

755 F.Supp. 993 (1990) Carolyn JORDAN, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, Sandra M. Pierce-Hanna, et al., Plaintiffs-Intervenors, v. John WILSON, etc., et al., Defendants, Gordon M. Ledbetter and John D. Shumway, Defendants-Intervenors. Civ. A. No. 75-19-N. United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, N.D. June 20, 1990. *994 J. Ri

626 N.E.2d 1282 (1993) 254 Ill. App.3d 1020 193 Ill.Dec. 731 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew WILSON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 1-88-2578. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division. September 30, 1993. *1286 Rita A. Fry, Office of t

771 P.2d 1077 (1989) STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Louis E. WILSON, Defendant and Appellant. No. 880103-CA. Court of Appeals of Utah. March 29, 1989. *1078 Martin V. Gravis, Ogden, for defendant and appellant. R. Paul Van Dam and Barbara Bearnson, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent. Before BI

574 So.2d 1324 (1990) James WILSON, Jr. v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 89-KA-0301. Supreme Court of Mississippi. December 19, 1990. Rehearing Denied February 6, 1991. *1325 Barry H. Powell, Thomas Price Alston, Jones & Davis, Dennis L. Horn, Horn & Payne, Jackson, Grady F. Tollison Jr., Tollison & Alexa

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SCRAP, INC., G.S.I. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO RECYCLING, INC., and D&S OF FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND PENSACOLA, INC., DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Petitioners, CASE NO. 1D16-5757 v. RICHARD ADAMS, EULAINE ADAMS, MALINDA ANDERSON, MARY MATTHEWS, HENRY ATKINS, JACQUELINE ATKINS, LUCY MAE BELL, BETTY BROWN, CLAYTON BROWN,

ORDER WILLIAM H. STEELE, Chief Judge. This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs motion to remand. (Doc. 10). The parties have filed numerous briefs concerning the propriety of removal, (Docs. 1, 5-7, 10, 15-17), and the motion is ripe for resolution. After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the motion to remand is due to be granted in part and denied in part. BACKG

PER CURIAM. Petitioners seek certiorari review of an order consolidating multiple cases for trial. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they will be irreparably harmed by the order of consolidation as the order is subject to review on direct appeal. See Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 48 So.3d 976, 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), disapproved on other grounds by Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 17

This appeal comes to us from the Circuit Court for Walker County, Alabama. The action was brought by, or in the name of, eleven individuals (the O'Rear group) who are residents of the City of Jasper, seeking first a temporary restraining order, then a preliminary injunction and permanent injunction, to prohibit Eula Mae Martin (Mrs. Martin) from constructing a multi-family improvement on her property in Jasper. From the trial court order granting the TRO, preliminary injunction and pe

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSING COUNT II OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT DAVID M. LAWSON, United States District Judge Plaintiff Frano Ivezaj, an American citizen with Albanian heritage, alleges in an amended complaint that he was terminated from his administrative position with the Detroit Public Schools and given a teaching position — at substantially l

199 F.Supp.2d 495 (2002) In the Matter of THE COMPLAINT OF RIVER CITY TOWING SERVICES, INC., as Owner of the T/B K700, Petitioning for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability No. CIV.A. 01-1935. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. March 12, 2002. *496 *497 Don Keller Haycraft, Guenton Cy

852 S.W.2d 285 (1993) Thalia MATHERSON and Verna G. Mitchell, Appellants, v. Elsie POPE, Hazel Pope, Mandy Anderson, and Patricia Culliver, Appellees. No. 05-92-01470-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. April 2, 1993. *287 Richard L. Stanford, Stanford & Dunaway, Dallas, for appellants. Steve R. Akers, Jenkens &

ORDER SONJA F. BIVINS, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Eula W. Rivers (“Plaintiff’) brings this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq., and

391 P.2d 789 (1964) Henry H. HAIR, Plaintiff in Error, v. Robert Morgan WILSON, Defendant in Error. No. 40417. Supreme Court of Oklahoma. April 21, 1964. Alan B. McPheron, Durant, Welch & Dudley, Madill, for plaintiff in error. Paul & Montgomery, Durant, Thomas E. Shaw, Madill, O.B. Martin, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error. PER CURIAM.

199 S.W.3d 58 (2004) MEDMARC CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. FOREST HEALTHCARE, INC., Regional Management, Inc., The Arkansas Property & Casualty Guaranty Fund, and The Estate of Eula Thurman, Deceased, Appellees. No. 03-1318. Supreme Court of Arkansas. December 2, 2004. *59 Gramovot & Takacs, P.L., by: Larry I.