Cases

* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1100 and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts 1.a., 1.b., 2., 3.a., and 3.c. [EDITORS' NOTE: TEXT NOT CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION APPEARS WITH GRAY BACKGROUND BELOW.] [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.]

146 B.R. 663 (1992) In re Frank G. LAWSON, Debtor. Susanna C. LAWSON, et al., Plaintiff, v. Frank G. LAWSON, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 91-10262-AT, Adv. No. 91-1072. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. February 26, 1992. H. Jason Gold, Dominique V. Sinesi, Gold & Stanley, P.C., Alexandria, Va. Wm. Bruce Gair, Porter &am;

McMillian, Judge. Appellees are current or former attorneys employed with the Office of the Public Defender, Atlanta Judicial Circuit (the “Public Defenders”) who filed suit against Fulton County, Georgia (the “County”), alleging breach of contract and violation of county laws. In their petition, the Public Defenders assert that, pursuant to the Civil Service Act of 1982 (the “C

745 A.2d 323 (2000) GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, et al., Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Patricia Y. LAWSON, et al., Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Nos. 96-CV-1588, 96-CV-1751. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued November 10, 1999. Decided February 17, 2000. *324 Steven A. Steinbach, with whom Michael K. R

ACCEPTED 03-13-00498-CV 4451721 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

The suit is by a mother for damages for enticing and carrying away her minor son. It is alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff is the mother of a boy of the age of fourteen years; that she is entitled to his care, custody, control, company and earnings, and has been put to great concern, worry, fear, humiliation, and vexation as the proximate loss of her minor child, — all to her damage. Plaintiff's contention is that on or about October 4, 1941, the defendant finishi

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE DIERINGER delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Cook County in favor of the defendant. It is an action in strict liability in tort to recover damages for the death of Sarah Lawson and for injuries sustained by Joanne Holmes due to their use of t

The defendants appealed from the judgment within sixty days after its rendition. The evidence and proceedings at the trial are embraced in a bill of exceptions. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs, George and Frank Watson, own certain lands, being about four hundred acres in extent, that plaintiff, Fred S. Watson, owns other lands to the extent of two hundred and eighty acres, that Gold Run Creek flows across the land of Fred S. Watson, that plaintiffs are the owners of the right

Mr. Justice Knous delivered the opinion of the court. *275The defendants in error, plaintiffs in the court below, were the owners and lessee of the Gray Copper lode mining claim. The plaintiff in error, defendant below, was the owner of the Fitchburg lode mining claim. The parties will be designated herein as they appeared in the trial court. Plaintiffs

McCLELLAN, J. — “Not guilty” is the plea which presents the genei’al issue in ejectment and in the statutory substitute for that action The only cases to which this plea is-made appropriate by section 2675 of the Code are actions for defamation or for injuries to the person, or to real or personal property. That section does not, therefore, apply to actions of ejectment or the statutory action for the recovery of land, a fact whi

HUNT, District Judge (after stating the facts as above). The important question is whether plaintiff had a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law. If he had, then the lower court properly refused to entertain his bill as one entitling him to equitable relief, 'at least until after he had instituted his legal action. We have plaintiff, a lessee out of possession, knowing that defendants, third persons, were

784 F.Supp.2d 653 (2011) Brian ISREAL, et al., v. RAEFORD FARMS OF LOUISIANA, LLC, et al. Civil Action No. 06-cv-1999. United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division. March 28, 2011. *654 Robert L. Salim, Law Office of Robert L. Salim, Natchitoches, LA, Joseph Carter *655 Me

458 F.Supp.2d 474 (2006) MICHIGAN DIVISION-MONUMENT BUILDERS OF NORTH AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHIGAN CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants. No. 2:05-CV-74721. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. October 27, 2006. *475 Barbara H. Kramer, Kramer and Kramer, David A. Nacht, Nacht Assoc., Ann

317 B.R. 260 (2004) In re AMES DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., et al., Debtor. NWL Holdings, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Eden Center, Inc., Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 01-42217 (REG) Adversary No. 04-3072. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York. August 27, 2004. *261 Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, by David S. Rosner, (argued)

956 F.Supp. 55 (1997) John R. STANLEY v. CF-VH ASSOCIATES, INC., et al. Civil Action No. 93-30232-MAP. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. February 13, 1997. Philip J. Ryan, Ryan, Martin, Costello, Allison & Leiter, Springfield, MA, David R. Kittay, Kittay, Gold & Krebsbach, P.C., White Plains, NY, for John R. Stanley and Transamerica Natural Gas

GINSBURG, Chief Judge. This appeal comes to us in the wake of Verizon Communications Inc. v. Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 124 S.Ct. 872, 157 L.Ed.2d 823 (2004), in which the Supreme Court held that a complaint alleging an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) refused to share elements of its network with a competitor, as required by the Telecommunicat

803 F.Supp. 393 (1992) Josephine HAYNES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHONEY'S, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 89-30093-RV. United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division. March 12, 1992. Thomas A. Warren and Sam J. Smith, Tallahassee, Fla. Cornelia T.L. Pillard, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., New York City, Jocelyn D. Larkin, Elaine

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS STEARNS, District Judge. The above-captioned case was transferred to this session of the court on November 4, 2014. Several motions to suppress are pending. The first three involve the identifications of defendants Danny Veloz, Jose Matos, and Gadiel Romero by cooperating witnesses.1 In addition, Veloz objects to the search

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge GINSBURG. GINSBURG, Chief Judge. This appeal comes to us in the wake of Verizon Communications Inc. v. Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 124 S.Ct. 872, 157 L.Ed.2d 823 (2004), in which the Supreme Court held that a complaint alleging an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) refused to share elements of its network with a competitor, as required by t

701 S.E.2d 144 (2010) ULTRA TELECOM, INC. et al. v. STATE of Georgia. Allstar, Inc. et al. v. State of Georgia. Nos. S09G1946, S09G1948. Supreme Court of Georgia. October 4, 2010. *145 Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Nelson & Schneider, Les A. Schneider, Atlanta; Paul, Oliver, McNatt, Greene & Peterson, Hugh B. McN