Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Jerome D. Clark (“plaintiff’), a former inmate at the Howard R. Young Correctional Institution (“HRYCI”), Wilmington, Delaware, proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis. He filed this lawsuit on January 14 2014, raising dental needs claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.I. 2) Presently b

364 B.R. 702 (2007) In re The VILLAS AT HACIENDA DEL SOL, INC., Debtor. No. 4-05-bk-1482-EWH. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona. March 15, 2007. *703 Raul Abad, Gust Rosenfeld, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for JFN Mechanical, Inc. John A. Baade, Jeanette M. Boulet, Scott H. Gan, Mesch Clark & Rothschild PC, Rob Charles, Lewis an

GALWAY, J. The defendant, Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC), appeals, and the plaintiff, Clark & Lavey Benefits Solutions, Inc. (C&L), cross-appeals, from rulings of the Trial Court (Groff, J.). We affirm. *222The record discloses the following facts. C&L was formed in 1997 to broker group insurance policies for companies th

323 S.W.3d 682 (2010) ERNST & YOUNG, LLP & David S. Meyer, Appellants, v. Sharon P. CLARK (In Her Official Capacity as Commissioner for the Kentucky Department of Insurance and Rehabilitator of AIK Comp); Stephen P. Lattanzio; Actuarial & Technical Solutions, Inc.; and John and Jane Does, all Unknown Actuaries and Accountants, Appellees. and Ernst & Young, LLP, Appellant, v. Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc.; Apoll

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Clark, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-4410.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or ot

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 50939 EDWARD A. EASTERLING and JANICE ) EASTERLING, husband and wife, ) ) Boise, August 2024 Term Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) ) Opinion filed: August 19, 2025 v. ) )

185 Ga. App. 250 (1987) 363 S.E.2d 785 SELIGMAN et al. v. SAVANNAH WHOLESALE COMPANY, INC.; and vice versa. 74348, 74349. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided November 23, 1987. Rehearing Denied December 11, 1987. H. Sol Clark, Malberry Smith, Jr., for appellants. Sam P. Inglesby, Jr., Thomas A. Nash, Jr.,

165 Ga. App. 868 (1983) 303 S.E.2d 50 STEWART v. BOYKIN et al. 65222. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided March 8, 1983. Rehearing Denied March 23, 1983. *873 Walter W. Ballew III, for appellant. H. Sol Clark, for appellees. McMURRAY, Presiding Judge. Pl

ROGERS, Circuit Judge: Appellants, Clark M. Clifford and Robert-A. Atman, appeal .an order of the district court denying access , to certain sealed documents and transcripts of in camera conferences between. the judge and a court-appointed trustee in the course of an ongoing criminal forfeiture proceeding. Appellants are not party to that proceeding, but are

J-S32014-24 2025 PA Super 15 CLARK PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LLC : PENNSYLVANIA : Appellant : : : v. : :

Deen, Presiding Judge. Robert Bowen brought a negligence action against Orkin Exterminating Co. for failure to treat his home properly for wood borers and received a judgment of $27,000 in actual damages and $73,000 in punitive damages. After trial, but before the time for filing a motion for a new trial had run, Bowen discovered that Orkin had wilfully concealed a subpoenaed witness. The appellee was apparently satisfied wi

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VALLE DEL SOL INCORPORATED; No. 12-17152 COALICION DE DERECHOS HUMANOS; UNITED FOOD AND D.C. No. COMMERCIAL WORKERS 2:10-cv-01061- INTERNATIONAL UNION; BORDER SRB ACTION NETWORK; JIM SHEE; UNKNOWN PARTY, Named as Jane Doe #3 in Amended Complaint; OPINION JOHN DOE #1, proceeding under pseudonym; LUZ SANTIAGO; ARIZONA SOUTH ASI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA WALTER KANEEKI CLARK, No. 76529 Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED Respondent. SEP 1 2 2019

159 Ga. App. 91 (1981) 282 S.E.2d 728 STEWART v. GEORGIA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. 61595. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided June 26, 1981. Kran Riddle, for appellant. Julian Toporek, James Poe, H. Sol Clark, for appellees. SOGNIER, Judge. Appellant Stewart sought insurance coverage from appellee, No

705 P.2d 1017 (1985) The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Angelo CLARK, Defendant-Appellant. No. 83CA0993. Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II. April 18, 1985. Rehearing Denied May 30, 1985. Certiorari Denied September 30, 1985. *1018 Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charle

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KENNETH E. CLARK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2017-0839-JTL ) CHESTER C. DAVENPORT, CECE ) DAVENPORT BERKOWITZ, COREY ) DAVENPORT, ROBERT L. REISLEY, ) J

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I join the majority opinion, except for its rejection of one issue raised by the trustee in his cross appeal. The trustee argues, and I agree, that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) erred by disregarding the bankruptcy court’s acceptance of a proposal by the trustee to take the commission he earned pursuan

762 P.2d 698 (1988) Robbie J. CLARK, Petitioner, v. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY and The Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado, Respondents. No. 87CA1329. Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I. April 14, 1988. Rehearing Denied May 26, 1988. Certiorari Denied October 11, 1988. Eugen A. Archuleta, Colorado Springs, for pet

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 21-2310 __________________________ *ANTOINE CLARK, as personal representative for Angelo Clark, Appellant v. ROBERT COUPE, DOC Commissioner; PERRY PHELPS; DAVID PIERCE; MAJOR JEFFREY CARROTHERS; CAPTAIN BURTON; CAPTAIN RISPOLI;

OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. We cannot say as a matter of law that the record before the suppression court, including the minutes of the in camera examination of the confidential informant, did not provide a sufficient basis on which to find that the arresting officer had probable cause for the warrantless arrest of defendants