Cases

74 So.3d 142 (2011) Monica Lee FOTINOS, Appellant, v. Emmanuel N. FOTINOS, Appellee. No. 2D10-2628. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. October 19, 2011. Sema Yildirim, Tampa, for Appellant. Steve Bartlett of Law Office of Steve Bartlett, P.A., Holiday, for Appellee. KELLY, Judge. The former wife, Monica Lee Fotinos, appeals fr

168 N.W.2d 698 (1969) 184 Neb. 486 Cathrine FOTINOS, Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. George FOTINOS, Appellee, Cross-Appellant. No. 37060. Supreme Court of Nebraska. June 13, 1969. *699 Cunningham & Blackburn, Wagoner & Grimminger, Grand Island, for cross-appellant. Kelly & Kelly, Grand Is

164 Ariz. 447 (1990) 793 P.2d 1114 Gus FOTINOS, an unmarried man, Furniture Distributors, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Leslie N. BAKER and Joy Baker, husband and wife, Defendants/Appellants. No. 2 CA-CV 89-0180. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2, Department A. February 15, 1990. Reconsideration Denied Marc

This case is before us on writ of error from an order and judgment of the court below sustaining a demurrer to the declaration as a whole and dismissing the cause. The declaration sought the recovery of damages for the breach of a bond given by the Romack Company Inc., in *Page 499 a distress proceedings, wherein the Romack Company had sued out a distress warrant against the plaintiffs in error, for $2000.00, and had given bond as required by the s

In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a for judicial dissolution of Corfian Enterprises, Ltd., and Epiros Realty, Ltd., (1) the petitioner appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Battaglia, J.), dated March 20, 2009, as, after a hearing, in effect, denied that branch of the petition which was for judicial dissolution of Epiros Realty, Ltd., and dismissed that portion of the proceeding, based on the affirm

SALARIO, Judge. Bernard Ter Keurst appeals from a final judgment dissolving his marriage to Kimberly Ter Keurst, who cross-appeals. The disputed issues involve the trial court’s equitable distribution decisions concerning the marital home and a beachfront condominium. The trial court erroneously awarded the former wife a “special equity” in these properties in violation of the e

In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a for the judicial dissolution of Corfian Enterprises, Ltd., and Epiros Realty, Ltd., Corfian Enterprises, Ltd., Epiros Realty, Ltd., and Paul Fotinos appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), entered September 6, 2007, which denied their renewed motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge Plaintiff Sikhs for Justice Inc. alleges that Defendant Facebook, Inc. violated *1090federal and state law by blocking access to ■Plaintiffs Facebook page (the “SFJ Page”) in I

58 P.3d 973 (2002) 203 Ariz. 597 Thomas R. ALTHAUS, Tara Althaus, husband and wife; Duffield, Miller, Young, Adamson & Alfred, P.C., an Arizona professional corporation, lately known as Duffield, Young, Adamson & Alfred, P.C., Petitioners, v. Hon. Carmine CORNELIO, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Pima, Respondent, and Penn-America Insurance Company, a wholly owned c

47 P.3d 1156 (2002) 202 Ariz. 518 Howard J. TABLER, III., Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, Schuck & Sons Construction, Respondent Employer, RSKCO, Respondent Carrier. No. 1CA-IC 01-0012. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department C. June 18, 2002. Redesignated as Opinion and Publicatio

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THOMAS R. ALTHAUS, TARA ) 2 CA-SA 2002-0107 ALTHAUS, husband and wife; ) DEPARTMENT B DUFF IELD, MILLER, YOUNG, ) ADAMSON & ALFRED, P.C., an Arizona ) OPINION professional corporation, lately known as ) DUFFIELD, YOUNG, ADAMSON &

Hannon, Judge. This is an appeal from a decree dissolving the marriage between the respondent, Ellen LaBenz, and the petitioner, C.J. LaBenz. Ellen appeals on the grounds the trial court erred (1) in *492determining that an account in the parties’ names jointly, which account contained the proceeds from the sale of a home owned by C.J. at the time of the marriage but

OPINION RE: ENFORCEABILITY OF UNSIGNED LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT RANDOLPH J. HAINES, Chief Judge. The issue in this case is whether a loan modification agreement negotiated between the Debtors and Everkrisp Vegetables, Inc. (“Everkrisp”) satisfied the Arizona Statute of Frauds or any of its exceptions. The Court concludes that the agreement did satisfy the Arizona Statute of Frauds, and even had it not,

PER CURIAM: This case returns to the Court for the second time since 2013. After the September 2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (“Lehman”), Plaintiffs-Appellants (“Plaintiffs”) brought suit on behalf of a putative class, of former participants in an employee stock ownership plan (“ESOP”) invested exclusively in Lehman’s common stock. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants-Appellees (“Plan Committee Defendants”

198 B.R. 33 (1996) In re George ROUSSOPOULOS and Zoe Roussopoulos, Debtors. Alan NISSELSON, Esq., Plaintiff, v. George and Zoe ROUSSOPOULOS and Haralabos Livadiotakis, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 192-16495-352. Adversary No. 195-1267-352. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York. July 12, 1996. *34

DYK, Circuit Judge, dissenting. In endorsing a facial challenge to a memorandum, and in holding that the memorandum must be assumed to dictate racial and gender discrimination without a factual hearing, the majority acts contrary to Supreme Court precedent and our own decision in Baker v. United States, 127 F.3d 1081 (Fed.Cir.1997). The majority’s approach is unsupported by any decision of the Supreme

237 N.W.2d 126 (1975) 195 Neb. 148 Doris M. GRUMMERT, Appellee, v. Orland W. GRUMMERT, Appellant. No. 40162. Supreme Court of Nebraska. December 31, 1975. *128 Robert F. Lammers, James P. McKernan, Fairbury, for appellant. Baldwin & Koenig, Hebron, for appellee. Heard before SPENCER, BOSL

246 N.W.2d 473 (1976) 196 Neb. 780 Ruth D. COZETTE, Appellee, v. Gerard J. COZETTE, Appellant. No. 40453. Supreme Court of Nebraska. October 27, 1976. Fred J. Swihart, Lincoln, for appellant. Albert L. Feldman, Stern, Harris, Feldman, Becker & Thompson, Omaha, for appellee. Heard before WHITE, C. J., and SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, M

15‐2229 In Re: Lehman Bros. Sec. and ERISA Litig. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ______________ August Term, 2015 (Argued: January 14, 2016 Decided: March 18, 2016) Docket No. 15‐2229 ____________

194 N.W.2d 183 (1972) 187 Neb. 752 STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Donald George Elroy McDONALD, Appellant. No. 38099. Supreme Court of Nebraska. January 28, 1972. Rehearing Denied April 20, 1972. *184 Brock & Seiler, Hastings, for appellant. Clarence A. H. Meyer, Atty. Gen., Ha