Cases

05/06/2025 DA 24-0646 Case Number: DA 24-0646 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2025 MT 91 TAYLOR KAI GROENKE, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RYAN DEAN GABRIEL, Defendant and

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § THE STATE OF TEXAS, No. 08-24-00227-CR § Appellant, Appeal from

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS ———————————— No. 08-24-00296-CR ———————————— THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant v. SAMID GABR

02-10-379-CV COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF T

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-10-00379-CV CYNTHIA OLSEN AND RICHARD APPELLANTS OLSEN V. FRANK H. PERRY APPELLEE ------------ FROM THE 17TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNT

640 N.E.2d 681 (1994) 266 Ill. App.3d 456 203 Ill.Dec. 761 Sharon GABRIEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IMMANUEL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 4-94-0198. Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District. Argued August 23, 1994. Decided September 30, 1994.

COHEN, J. Appellant, Gabor F. Gabriel (“Gabriel”), appeals from the trial court’s summary judgment of his complaint for unseaworthiness, Jones Act1 negligence, and maintenance and cure, entered in favor of Appel-lee, Magical Cruise Company, Ltd., d/b/a Disney Cruise Line (“DCL”). Finding no error as to the unseaworthiness and negligence claim related to the cause of his injuries, we af

KITE, Chief Justice. [11] After Gabriel R. Drennen appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery, we remanded for a hearing on his assertion that defense counsel was ineffective. The district court found his trial counsels' performance was deficient because they failed to present expert testimony in support of his self-defense claims. The cour

COFFIN, Chief Judge. . Appellant,- the United States, commenced this action in the district court, seeking to collect $15,529.70 plus accrued interest allegedly due from appellee as guarantor of a note held by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 28 U.S.C. § 1345; 15 U.S.C. § 634(b)(1). On cross motions for summary judgment the district court dismissed the complaint, and the

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS ———————————— No. 08-24-00199-CR ———————————— The State of Texas, Appellant v.

142 Wis.2d 465 (1988) 419 N.W.2d 211 CONSUMER'S CO-OP OF WALWORTH COUNTY, a Wisconsin Cooperative, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Christian E. OLSEN, a/k/a E. Christian Olsen, an individual, Defendant-Appellant, Jack OLSEN, a/k/a John Olsen, an individual, Defendant. No. 86-1549. Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Argued November 3, 1987. Decided

64 N.J. Super. 90 (1960) 165 A.2d 524 WILLIAM R. OLSEN, JR. AND MARY OLSEN, ET ALS., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. BOROUGH OF FAIR HAVEN, ET ALS., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued October 25, 1960. Decided November 28, 1960. *92 Before Judges PRICE, GAULKIN and S

Argued April 21, 1931. This appeal is from an order opening a judgment, entered as by confession, and remitting the parties to a jury trial on issues specified. As the proceeding is governed by equitable principles, the practice on appeal is to affirm, unless abuse of discretion in making the order clearly appears, and this is true even though the court below, on a prior application, had refused to open the judgment: Silberman v. Shuklansky, 172 Pa. 77; John

259 P.3d 558 (2011) Lauro SOSA, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE OF the STATE of Colorado and Swift Beef Company, Respondents. No. 10CA1671. Colorado Court of Appeals, Division VII. July 7, 2011. *559 Ira A. Sanders, Greeley, Colorado, for Petitioner. John W. Suthers, Attorney General, A.A. Lee Hegner, Assist

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES Daviess County, Indiana and Daviess Terry A. White County Health Department Olsen & White, LLP Evansville, Indiana R. Jeffrey Lowe Crystal G. Rowe Kightlinger & Gray, LLP New Albany, Indiana FILED ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS

Order GREGORY A. PRESNELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings *1274(Doc. 496) filed by the Defendants (henceforth, collectively, “Halifax”) and the responses thereto (Doc. 505, 511) filed by the Plaintiffs. I. Background In this matter, the Relat

OPINION MEROW, Judge. This vaccine case is before the court on petitioner’s motion for review of the special master’s decision denying compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-1 to 300aa-34 (1994) (Vaccine Act), for injuries sustained by Brian Christopher Wittner. The special master determined that petitioner, Nicholas Wittner (Brian’s father), failed to prove under th

STRAUB, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs-Appellants, four former employees of UBS AG and/or UBS Financial Services, Inc., appeal from a final judgment and a postjudgment order of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Richard J. Sullivan, Judge), the first granting defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety, and the second denying plaintiffs’ m

*1157 SEYMOUR, Chief Judge. In this securities class action suit in the District Court of Colorado, Jack Joseph asserts claims on behalf of himself and others similarly situated pursuant to section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the 1933 Act), 15 U.S.C. § 77k, and section 10(b) of the Securities Exc

STUCKY, Judge (concurring in the result): I concur in the result — the military judge erred in not granting the defense challenge for cause against Captain Villalobos. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that this is a ease of implied bias. Federal courts generally recognize two forms of bias that make a juror subject to a challenge for cause: “actual or implied; that is, it may be