Cases

Mercure, J. P. Appeal from that part of a judgment of the Supreme Court (Fromer, J.H.O.), entered September 18, 2000 in Ulster County, upon a dismissal at trial of defendant’s counterclaim for an accounting. The parties are brothers. In 1987, they acquired property in the Town of Saugerties, Ulster County, as tenants in common and executed a purchase money mortgage securing their note for $200,000. The complaint

McMillian, Judge. The State appeals the trial court’s order granting Kevin Thomas Nicholson’s motion to suppress the results of a state-administered chemical blood test, arguing that the trial court erred in concluding that Nicholson did not voluntarily consent to the test. For the reasons that follow, we agree and reverse. “On appeal from a ruling on a mot

MOORMAN, Judge, concurring: I write separately to further discuss the state of the law following Andrews v. Nicholson, 421 F.3d 1278 (Fed.Cir.2005), and specifically I conclude that filing a motion for revision of a prior final RO or Board decision on the basis of CUE is not the only way in which to raise the issue of an unadjudicated pending claim. I conclude that the Fe

On Appeal from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. HAGEL, Judge: Therese M. George-Harvey appeals through counsel a May 13, 2004, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision in which the Board denied her claim for dependency and indemnity compensation. 1 Record (R.) at 3, 15. The Court has jurisdict

OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER DATED MAY 15, 2013 STEPHEN RASLAVICH, Bankruptcy Judge. This Opinion is filed pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 8001 — 1(b) for the purpose of amplifying the Court’s oral bench ruling and Order of May 15, 2013. That Order granted the United States’ Trustee’s request to convert the case to a Chapter 7 proceeding. Background

ORDER The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 81(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.

ON MOTION ORDER Upon consideration of George E. Chavez’s unopposed motion to dismiss his appeal, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. (2) All sides shall bear their own costs.

PER CURIAM: Rhonda McKoy appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Department of Veterans Affairs in McKoy’s employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McKoy v. United States Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, No. 5:06-cv-00217-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 10, 2008). We dispense wi

PER CURIAM: Rhonda McKoy appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Department of Veterans Affairs in McKoy’s employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McKoy v. United States Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, No. 5:06-cv-00217-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 10, 2008). We dispense wi

ON MOTION ORDER Upon consideration of George E. Harrison, Sr.’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal, IT IS ORDERED THAT: *901(1) The motion is granted. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

ORDER The parties having so agreed, it is ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).

ORDER GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to vacate the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ judgments in McInvale v. Nicholson, 02-0649, 2006 WL 1523009 (Vet.App. 2006), Martin v. Nicholson, 05-2072, 2006 WL 1522464 (Vet.App. 2006), Owings v. Nicholson, 05-2013, 2006 WL 1727636 (Vet.App. 2006), Nichols v. Nicholson,

*975 ORDER GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves ■without opposition to vacate the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ judgments in Fox v. Nicholson, 05-2182, 20 Vet.App. 387, 2005 WL 4044557 (2005), Hash v. Nicholson, 05-1922, 20 Vet.App. 387, 2005 WL 4044552 (2005), Nation v. Nicholson,

SCHOELEN, Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion in this case because the majority has muddled the concepts of subject-matter jurisdiction and standing. Once these concepts are untangled, it is clear that the Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant petition and that The American Legion has standing to bring it. I. SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

BRYSON, Circuit Judge. ORDER The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to vacate the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ judgments in Wedel v. Nicholson, 05-1794, 20 Vet.App. 453, McClellan v. Nicholson, 05-1858, 2006 WL 1727576, Shanley v. Nicholson, 04-0912, 2006 WL 952564, Sawaya v. Nicholson, 05-1792, 2006 WL 1522605, Epley v. Nicholson,

ON MOTION ORDER MAYER, Circuit Judge. Upon consideration of the joint motion in each of these cases Walters v. VA, CAVC 01-1469; Stancil v. VA, CAVC 01-2056; Lewis v. VA, CAVC 01-211) to vacate the decision of the Court Of Appeals for Veterans Claims and remand for further proceedings in view of the court’s decision in the lead case of Wilson v

AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER Defendants-Appellants City of New York and the Administration for Children’s Services (“ACS”), the City’s chief child-welfare administrator, appeal a preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, ■/.). The district court found that the ACS “systematically and repeatedly removed children” from a custodial parent based solely on a finding that the

181 F.Supp.2d 182 (2002) In re Sharwline NICHOLSON, et al. No. CV 00-2229, CV 00-5155, CV 00-6885. United States District Court, E.D. New York. January 3, 2002. Lansner & Kubitschek, New York, By David Lansner, Carolyn Kubitschek, Sanctuary for Families, Battered Women's Legal Services, New York, By Jill Zuccardy, for Plaintiffs Subclass A. Legal Aid Juvenile Rig

377 S.C. 590 (2008) 660 S.E.2d 303 The ESTATE OF Ada B. NICHOLSON, by Ronald D. NICHOLSON, Personal Representative, Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. No. 4368. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Submitted March 3, 2008. Filed April 3, 2008. *592

Memorandum and Order WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge. I. Introduction: Plaintiffs who prosecute this case are mothers who claim they have been physically abused by the men in their lives; that their children have been removed from their custody and kept separated from them by the New York Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) on the ground that they have been subjected