Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER KAREN E. SCHREIER, District Judge. Plaintiff, Gordon Fahey, brought suit against defendant, Twin City Fan Companies, LTD., alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and SDCL 20-13-10. A court trial was held October 30-31, 2013. The court has considered the testimony, exhibits, and closing arguments in determining the outcome of this case.

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SHARON BURNETTE; PAMELA K.  BURROUGHS; FRANK CARTER, JR.; EDWARD CONQUEST; DONALD W. HOFFMAN; MONTY KING, formerly known as Imond Monty Hicks; LARRY MACON; MARVIN MCCLAIN; BENJAMIN PERDUE, JR.; HENRY STUMP; BARBARA TABOR, Suing on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HELEN F. FAHEY, In her capacity

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review (1) a determination of the respondent, Mary Glass, Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, dated October 21, 1994, which, after a hearing, affirmed a determination of the Nassau County Department of Social Services denying the petitioner’s application for public assistance and a rent arrears allowance, and (2) a determination of the respondent, Mary Glass, Acting Commissi

*1456Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Diane Y. Devlin, J.), entered January 4, 2012. The order denied defendant and third-party plaintiffs motion for an injunction during the pendency of the underlying action. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant and third-pa

*1456Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Diane Y. Devlin, J.), entered January 4, 2012. The order denied defendant and third-party plaintiffs motion for an injunction during the pendency of the underlying action. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant and third-pa

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 269 CA 12-01869 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. RG & RH, INC. AND LG & WH, INC., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SCHMIDT’S AUTO BODY & GLASS, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ---------------------------------------------- SCHMIDT’S AUTO BODY & GLASS, INC., THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

*551The determination that the petitioner wilfully and without good cause violated work relief rules by failing to report to his worksite was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Tillman v Fahey, 53 NY2d 815; Matter of Van Leuvan v Blum, 73 AD2d 1003). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Borenstein, J. Plaintiffs, Richard and Shirley Fahey,3 commenced this litigation in November of 1992 to recover from defendants, Philip Morris, Inc. (“Philip Morris”), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (“Reynolds”), The Tobacco Institute, Inc. (‘TI”), and The Council for Tobacco Research — USA, Inc. (“CTR”), for injuries suffered as a result of plaintiff Richard Fahey’s forty years of cigarette smoking. Plain

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Eugene M. Fahey, J.), entered December 14, 2005. The order, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without *1177costs, the cross motion is denied, the complai

JUSTICE LINN delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff, Patricia Glass, filed this action to recover damages for injuries she sustained after falling down steps located in the food court of Randhurst Shopping Center in Mount Prospect, Illinois. She alleged various defects in the design of the stairs owned and maintained by a group of defendants including Morgan Guaranty T

147 Conn. 13 (1959) STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. RAYMOND J. FAHEY Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued October 8, 1959. Decided November 24, 1959. BALDWIN, C. J., KING, MURPHY, MELLITZ and SHEA, JS. *14 Wesley C. Gryk, with whom, on the brief, was Anthony J. Gryk, for the appellant (defendant). Jack Rubi

McAlvay, J. On September 2, 1902, plaintiff, who was a seamstress and on her way to her work at the residence of Mr. Jones at Grosse Pointe, was riding on the line of defendant company along Jefferson avenue in the city of Detroit. A slight collision occurred at Bates street crossing, where there is a switch connecting the line on Jefferson avenue with that on Bates, caused by the front end of the car on which plaintiff was ridin

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT PATRICIA TREJO, Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, Appellee. No. 4D22-856 [April 13, 2023] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Scott

Garcia, J. (concurring). I agree fully with the majority opinion. I write separately to express an opposing view with respect to the “recommended practice[s]” discussed in Judge Fahey’s concurring opinion (concurring op at 544). Rather than a “full adversarial” hearing (concurring op at 544), I believe the appropriate practice is best determined by the trial court on the facts and circumstances of a given case, with due regar

State of New York MEMORANDUM Court of Appeals This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. No. 31 The People &c., Respondent, v. Hassan Rkein, Appellant. Mandy E. Jaramillo, for appellant. Jared Wolkowitz, for respondent. MEMORANDUM: The order of the

OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. In the early morning hours of December 7, 2008, following a night of heavy drinking, José Sucuzhanay and his brother Romel Sucuzhanay were walking home in their Brooklyn neighborhood while supportively holding one another. The brothers crossed in front

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County *1347(John M. Curran, J.), entered August 28, 2013. The order, among other things, granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this legal malpractice action against defendants, Kavinoky

FILED Apr 17, 2025 12:44 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County *1347(John M. Curran, J.), entered August 28, 2013. The order, among other things, granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this legal malpractice action against defendants, Kavinoky

Rivera, J. (dissenting). The prosecutor’s use of digitally edited reproductions of exhibits to convey inferences and misinformation, as well as to project defendant’s image as the “face of death,” exceeded the bounds of proper summation. A prosecutor may not use altered copies of exhibits to suggest that the evidence unequivocally establishes disputed facts or to distract the jury by playing to emotion. That, however, is what hap