Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Vv. Criminal No. 21-0713 (PLF) FRANKLIN A. OLAITAN Defendant. me Nee Nee Ne eee” ree Nene nee eee OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Franklin A. Olaitan is charged in a ten-count indictment with various fraud and theft offenses relating to an alleged real estate fraud scheme. See Superseding Indictment (“Indictment”) [Dkt. No. 5]. A jury trial is scheduled to begin on September 8, 2023. The government has filed a mo

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 26a0195p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ DR. AMY DICHIARA, │ Plaintiff-Appellant,

Opinion PER CURIAM. PER CURIAM: A jury convicted appellants Perholtz and Jackson of one count of racketeering and thirteen counts of mail fraud in connection with Postal Service and Small Business Administration (“SBA”) procurements. The jury convicted appellant Fletcher of ten counts of mail fraud in connection with the same SBA procurement. The jury al

i. Severability Cape Publications found that the title of the statute, "Action relating to *634childhood sexual abuse or childhood sexual assault," did not adequately provide notice of the statute's effect on the sealing of records and thus Section (3) was unconstitutional. Defendants argue that Section (2) of the statute is inseverab

MEMORANDUM PRATTER, District Judge. This multidistrict litigation poses the question: If a tree falls in the forest, was it caused by DuPont’s herbicide, Imprelis? Rather than squarely answer that question, the parties reached a class action settlement after months of negotiation, and the Court preliminarily approved that settlement in February of 2013. In the months that followed, the parties eng

215 F.Supp.2d 795 (2002) In re NORPLANT CONTRACEPTIVE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. MDL No. 1038. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division. August 14, 2002. *796 *797 Christopher Matthew Parks, Parker & Parks, Port Arthur, TX, for Plaintiffs. F. Lane Heard III, Williams

STAPLES, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The prisoner was indicted in the Circuit court of Carroll county for the murder of Annuel Edwards. At the April term 1874 he was tried and convicted of murder in the second degree, and the period of his confinement in the penitentiary fixed at nine years. During the progress of the trial the prisoner offered in evidence the record of a suit

STAPLES, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The prisoner was indicted in the Circuit court of Carroll county for the murder of Annuel Edwards. At the April term 1874 he was tried and convicted of murder in the second degree, and the period of his confinement in the penitentiary fixed at nine years. During the progress of the trial the prisoner offered in evidence the record of a suit

STAPLES, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The prisoner was indicted in the Circuit court of Carroll county for the murder of Annuel Edwards. At the April term 1874 he was tried and convicted of murder in the second degree, and the period of his confinement in the penitentiary fixed at nine years. During the progress of the trial the prisoner offered in evidence the record of a suit

MONCURE, J., after stating the case, proceeded: If the question were res integra, “Whether a deed of trust conveying all the property of a debtor for the benefit of such of his creditors as may within a specified time release him from all further claims; and providing that the surplus of the trust fund after satisfying the accepting creditors should be paid to the debtor, is valid against the creditors who do not

MONCURE, J., after stating the case, proceeded: If the question were res integra, “Whether a deed of trust conveying all the property of a debtor for the benefit of such of his creditors as may within a specified time release him from all further claims; and providing that the surplus of the trust fund after satisfying the accepting creditors should be paid to the debtor, is valid against the creditors who do not

MONCURE, J., after stating the case, proceeded: If the question were res integra, “Whether a deed of trust conveying all the property of a debtor for the benefit of such of his creditors as may within a specified time release him from all further claims; and providing that the surplus of the trust fund after satisfying the accepting creditors should be paid to the debtor, is valid against the creditors who do not