Cases

MEMORANDUM EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge. Table of Contents I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .715 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.715 III. LEGAL STANDARD .716 IV. DISCUSSION.717 A. Claim A: Ineffectiveness for Failure to Reasonably Investigate, Develop, and Present Exculpatory Background and Mental Health Ev

61 Wn. App. 520 (1991) 810 P.2d 1387 LARRY G. HOWARD, ET AL, Appellants, v. WILLIAM HORN, Respondent. No. 10957-7-III. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three. June 6, 1991. Timothy Cronin and Mullin, Cronin & Blair, P.S., for appellants. *522 Curtis L. Shoemaker

In re Howard Pile Driving; The Gray Insurance Company; — Defendant(s); Ap*580plying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 113-058; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-C-1052. Stay denied. Writ denied. VICTORY and GUIDRY, JJ, would grant.

636 F.Supp.2d 10 (2009) Richard HORN, Plaintiff, v. Franklin HUDDLE, Jr., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 94-1756 (RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. July 16, 2009. *13 Brian C. Leighton, Clovis, CA, James A. Moody, The Cullen Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Adam S. Hoffinger,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LEON, District Judge. There are seven stockholder derivative actions that have been filed by individual and institutional plaintiffs in this Court.1 Currently pending before the Court are various parties’ motions to consolidate the actions and for appointment of a leadership structure. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the parties

333 S.W.3d 137 (2011) Christopher Lynn HOWARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas. No. PD-0521-10. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. March 9, 2011. Tim Cone, Gilmer, for Appellant. Zan Colson Brown, Asst. D.A., Longview, Jeffrey L. Van Horn, State's Atty., Austin, for State. WOMACK, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Wielding a rif

OPINION HORN, Judge. FINDINGS OF FACT The plaintiffs, who claim property interests along a rail line in Cass and Pulaski Counties, in Indiana, filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging that the government caused uncompensated takings of their property interests pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs premise their clai

*232ORDER MARIAN BLANK HORN, Judge. In this Rails to Trails takings case, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the defendant, the United States, has requested this court to certify several questions to the Indiana Supreme Court regarding issues of state law, pursuant to Rule 64 of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure

14 N.Y.3d 431 (2010) 928 N.E.2d 399 902 N.Y.S.2d 17 HOWARD S., Appellant, v. LILLIAN S., Respondent. No. 71 Court of Appeals of New York. Argued March 24, 2010. Decided April 29, 2010. *432 Blank Rome, LLP, New York City (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, Donald F

OPINION OF THE COURT Freedman, J. This interlocutory appeal in a matrimonial action raises two issues. The first is whether defendant wife’s alleged misrepresentation to plaintiff husband that he was the biological father of one of their children, when in fact the child was conceived during her adultery and fathered by her lover, constitutes “egregious fault” sufficient to be considered in equitably

258 F.Supp.2d 908 (2002) Howard CANNON Plaintiff v. ELK HORN BANK AND TRUST, Anthony Michael and Defendants Brad Simmons Defendants No. CIV. 02-6139. United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division. October 25, 2002. *909 Q. Byrum Hurst, Hurst Law Officer, Hot Springs, AR, for Plaintiff. Gregory E. Bryant

19-2418-cv; 19-2443-cv Horn; Jackson v. Stephenson In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit ________ AUGUST TERM 2020 ARGUED: SEPTEMBER 3, 2020 DECIDED: AUGUST 26, 2021 ________ No. 19-2418-cv VERNON HORN,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER O’MALLEY, District Judge. This opinion discusses three cases that have been transferred to this Court as related to Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) No. 1401, known as In re: Sulzer Orthopedics Inc. Hip Prosthesis and Knee Prosthesis Products Liability Litigation1 The three cases are: (1) Moore v. Sulzer Orthoped

Hoffmann v Horn (2018 NY Slip Op 00414) Hoffmann v Horn 2018 NY Slip Op 00414 Decided on January 24, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law

HOWARD, Judge, This is an appeal from the Martin Circuit Court wherein an oral trust agreement between plaintiff-appellee, Jerry Horn (hereinafter referred to as Jerry), and defend*320ant-appellant, Luther Horn (hereinafter referred to as Luther) was found to be valid and enforceable. Luther was adjudged to be holding in trust for Jerry the entire tract of land previously own

OPINION OF THE COURT ALDISERT, Circuit Judge. This case once again presents the federal courts with the serious and difficult task of balancing an individual’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion with the principle, derived from the concepts of separation of powers and federalism inherent in our constitutional order, that federal courts sh

Andree Layton Roaf, Justice. Appellant, Ginger Howard, was a patient of the appellee, Ozark Guidance Center (“OGC”). Howard sued OGC, claiming that it negligently allowed an affair to continue between its receptionist and Howard’s husband. The trial judge granted OGC’s motion for summary judgment because the three-year statute of limitations for negligence actions had expired. On appeal, Howard claims that

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. Inmates at Ozark Correctional Center (OCC) appeal an order of the district court1 approving a proposed consent decree submitted by attorneys for both sides in this consolidated class action certified under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) challenging the conditions at the OCC. The inmates allege that they were afforded inadequate notice and opportunity to be heard and that the district

813 N.E.2d 391 (2004) HOWARD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Appellant-Defendant, v. Kellie and Paul LUKOWIAK, Appellees-Plaintiffs. No. 34A02-0310-CV-916. Court of Appeals of Indiana. August 12, 2004. *392 R. Christopher McGrath, Zachary J. Stock, Mandel, Pollack & Horn, P.C., Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.

Howard v Evans (2020 NY Slip Op 07872) Howard v Evans 2020 NY Slip Op 07872 Decided on December 23, 2020 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law §