Cases

848 N.E.2d 675 (2006) Carson LUTZ, Appellant (Defendant below), v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, as Subrogee of Paul McCormick, Appellee (Plaintiff below). No. 49S02-0606-CV-205. Supreme Court of Indiana. June 8, 2006. *677 Stephen Gerald Gray, Indianapolis, for Appellant. Stephen A. Semotuk, Carmel, for Appellee. BOEHM,

820 N.E.2d 766 (2005) Carson LUTZ, Appellant-Defendant, v. The CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, Appellee-Plaintiff. No. 49A05-0404-CV-198. Court of Appeals of Indiana. January 18, 2005. *767 Stephen Gerald Gray, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant. Shelese Woods, Office of Corporation Counsel, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appe

OPINION BAKER, Judge. Appellant-defendant Carson Lutz appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for a directed verdict with respect to ap-pellee-plaintiff Erie Insurance Exchange's (Erie) subrogation action against him for property damage that resulted to one of its insured's vehicles following an automobile accident. Lutz further maintains that the trial court erred in denying his request that it take judici

Sears-Collins, Justice, dissenting. The issue we are now asked to decide is whether Section 3 of the Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 19876 (hereafter “the Act”), now codified at OCGA § 9-11-9.1, offends Art. III, Sec. V, Par. III of the Georgia Constitution, which provides that “[n]o bill shall pass which refers to more than one subject matter or contains matter different from what

JUSTICE GRAY, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the Court’s opinion on the issue of submitting the affirmative defense of assumption of the risk to the jury, and I specially concur on the issue of whether the District Court should have recused itself. In all other respects, I join in the Court’s opinion. With regard to the assumption of the

[Cite as State v. Gray, 2021-Ohio-1227.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 20AP0019 Appellee v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE SETH GRAY

ROGERS, Chief Judge: Appellant Elijah Karriem appeals from the grant of summary judgment and the denial of his motions for a preliminary injunction and a cease and desist order. He also appeals from the denial of his motion *113for a temporary restraining order. We affirm. I. On April 16, 1991, the D.C. Department of Finance and R

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2018-CA-01550-COA STACIE MURRAY APPELLANT v. JAMES GRAY D/B/A GRAY TRUCKING AND APPELLEES KEVIN PARKER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/28/2018 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. MARK SHELDON DUNCAN COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: SCOTT COUNTY CIRCUIT

258 S.E.2d 399 (1979) 43 N.C. App. 194 Ruby L. TAYLOR v. LUTZ-YELTON HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING CORPORATION. No. 7827SC1114. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. October 2, 1979. *401 Caudle, Underwood & Kinsey by Lloyd C. Caudle and Scott C. Gayle, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellant. Golding

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 18, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D23-2203 Lower Tribunal No. 17-89-M ________________ Krapff, Gray, and Nightengale Properties, LLC, Appellan

271 F.Supp.2d 1196 (2003) CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Plaintiff, v. James E. LUTZ, Defendant. No. C01-3616 MHP. United States District Court, N.D. California. July 10, 2003. *1197 Robert C. Phelps, Pillsbury Winthrop LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff. Peter L. Simon, Beyers Costin & Case, Santa Rosa, CA, for Defendant.</

OPINION BROWN, Judge. In this consolidated, interlocutory appeal, Capitol Construction Services, Inc. (“Capitol”) appeals the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Amy Gray, as personal representative of the estate of Clinton Gray (“The Estate”). Additionally, Capitol appeals the court’s denial of its cross-motion for summary judgment. Capitol raises three issues, which we consolidate a

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2002-CA-01526-SCT JULIE ANN GRAY JOHNSON v. MICHAEL E. GRAY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 7/3/2002 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. WILLIAM JOSEPH LUTZ COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: MADISON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: STEPHEN L. BEACH, III ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:

248 So.2d 313 (1971) 258 La. 852 STATE of Louisiana v. Henry Earl GRAY. No. 50898. Supreme Court of Louisiana. May 4, 1971. Rehearing Denied June 7, 1971. *314 Wilson, Veatch & Booth, Robert A. Booth, Jr., Shreveport, for defendant-appellant. Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., H

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 21, 2009 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTOINE DEVIN GRAY, AKA ANTOINE DEVIN WEST Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County Nos. 40501164, 40701242, 40701428, 40701430 John H. Gasaway, Judge No. M2009-00510-CCA-R3-CD - Filed December 10, 2009 The Defendant

DOWLING, J., Junkets paid for by corporations doing business with the government have become somewhat routine for a number of elected officials, particularly those in the legislative branch. Our junketeers were two employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Welfare who accepted paid trips; James Gray to the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, compliments of Bell of Pennsylvania, and Stephen Stoner to Lake Tahoe, Nevada, compliment

PER CURIAM: Two questions are posed in this appeal from a decree holding the manufacturer of the BETH II, a 27-foot 1961 cabin cruiser, solely responsible for her loss and the ensuing personal injury and property damages occasioned when she exploded during an effort to start the gasoline engines. The first is that the vessel owner’s

BRATTON, Circuit Judge. This is an action instituted under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2671-2680, to recover damages for personal injuries. After issues were joined and evidence was adduced, the court found among other things that plaintiff was the wife of an enlisted member of the armed forces of the Unite

ON PETITION EOK REHEARING. By the Court, Massey, J.: The petition for rehearing contains much that was fully considered by the court on the hearing of the action. Counsel has evidently a misconception of the scope of the original opinion, hence very little that is urged in support of the application is pertinent. We held, in effect, that a mortgage that expressly stipulated that the mortgagor, h

CONCURRING OPINION. I concur in the original holding and in the present action of the court in overruling the petition for a rehearing. At the time the decision was rendered *Page 513 I entertained some doubt as to whether the taxes imposed by the legislative acts involved in this suit are excise or property taxes. But after more mature consideration I am convinced that they are excise taxes. Assuming that to be true it is urged that the sections of chapt