Cases

Lynch, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Main Jr., J.), entered March 26, 2015 in St. Lawrence County, which, among other things, partially denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that they entered into oral agreements permitting defendants to use two of their excavators in various constructio

OPINION RILEY, Judge. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant-Petitioner, Leslie F. Pitea-vage (Leslie), appeals the trial court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (Decree), issued pursuant to the dissolution of her marriage to Appellee-Respondent, Joel M. Pitcavage (Joel).

2004 UT 51 LKL Associates, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Ann M. Farley; Janet Heidt; James E. Caruso; William Jackson; Jillian Anderson; Guy G. Berryessa; Flagstar Bank, FSB; Approved Financial Corp.; Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.; Advance Mortgage Corporation; Superior Insulation Co.; Western Wholesale Flooring; Anderson Lumber Company; Superior Plumbing and Heating, Inc.; JM Mechanical/Service Experts; Aqua Balance, Inc.; Rob Chlarson; Dennis Skiby; an

Eldridge, Judge. Edward Farley III was convicted by a jury for the offense of sale of marijuana. He appeals from the denial of bis motion for new trial. Without challenging the sufficiency of the evidence that supports his conviction, Farley alleges that a custodial statement he made, in which he admitted selling marijuana to Georgia Bureau of Investigation (“GBI”) Agent Kimberly Ann Hull, should have been excluded because it

[Cite as Farley v. McKenzie, 2022-Ohio-281.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY BRITTANY FARLEY : : Petitioner-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 29217 : v.

Poltorak v Clarke (2025 NY Slip Op 04496) Poltorak v Clarke 2025 NY Slip Op 04496 Decided on July 30, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department Golia, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

Filed 3/5/24 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR THE PEOPLE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF A168018 THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. Respondent; No. 23000776) LEE

Matter of Farley v Annucci (2023 NY Slip Op 05647) Matter of Farley v Annucci 2023 NY Slip Op 05647 Decided on November 9, 2023 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law

Matter of Farley v Annucci (2024 NY Slip Op 00480) Matter of Farley v Annucci 2024 NY Slip Op 00480 Decided on February 1, 2024 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law

FARLEY, Judge: This is an appeal from a July 27, 1994, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) which denied entitlement to vocational rehabilitation subsistence allowance under chapter 31, title 38, U.S.Code, for enrollment in a non-degree flight instructor program. This appeal is timely and the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a). For the reasons that follow, the Court will affirm the BV

MEMORANDUM OPINION KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge On May 30, 2014, Plaintiff Michael Robinson (“Robinson”)—a 28-year-old man with cerebral palsy and intellectual disabilities—encountered a Prince "George’s County police officer while Robinson was sitting at a bus stop on his way to purchase trash bags. (See Third

171 Mich. App. 784 (1988) 431 N.W.2d 95 ATKINSON v. FARLEY Docket No. 95953. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided October 3, 1988. Charles G. Gale, for plaintiff. Kohl, Secrest, Wardle, Lynch, Clark & Hampton (by Poger F. Wardle and Timothy F. Casey), for defendants. Before: KELLY, P.J., and GRIBBS

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2024 ME 52 Docket: Som-23-55 Argued: September 12, 2023 Decided: July 18, 2024 Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, HORTON, CONNORS, LAWRENCE, and DOUGLAS, JJ.* STATE OF MAINE v. COREY W. FARLEY LAWRENCE, J. [¶1] Corey W. Fa

OSCN Found Document:FARLEY v. CITY OF CLAREMORE FARLEY v. CITY OF CLAREMORE2020 OK 30Case Number: 115400Decided: 05/05/2020THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Cite as: 2020 OK 30, __ P.3d __ NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.

CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge. In January 1992 the United States filed a complaint alleging that William F. Farley violated Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18a, commonly called the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (“HSR Act”). The complaint alleges that on March 24, 1988, Farley failed to notify the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”)

[Cite as State v. Farley, 2012-Ohio-1093.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 24632 v. :

[Cite as State v. Farley, 2012-Ohio-3620.] COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.

BARNEY, Chief Judge. John Farley (“Husband”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Butler County dissolving his 21 year marriage to Rebecca Farley (‘Wife”). In pertinent part, the judgment gave Husband and Wife joint legal and physical custody of their son, Dustin Farley, born April 27, 1988, (“Dusty”). Wife, however, was designated the primary care giver and Husband was ordered to pay the sum of $126.00 a month as ch

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. In 1987, Judith Farley had a lesion removed from her scalp; the lesion was diagnosed as a malignant melanoma, or skin cancer. The following year, evaluation revealed that the cancer had spread; tumors were present in her lung and her brain stem. Mrs. Farley’s husband, plaintiff Carl Farley, was employed by Thiel Tool and Engineering at the

90 Cal.App.3d 851 (1979) 153 Cal. Rptr. 695 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TERRY FARLEY, Defendant and Appellant. In re TERRY FARLEY on Habeas Corpus. Docket Nos. 32411, 32901. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four. March 22, 1979. *855 COUNSEL Russell Iungerich, u