Cases

Wecht, J. The corporation counsel is suing the defendant Rose E. Grumlich under the authority of sections 125 and 128 of the Public Welfare Law. It appears that relief was granted to the defendant’s mother in the sum of $540 from October 1, 1931, to March 1, 1933, and to the defendant’s father in the sum of $510 from October 1, 1931, to February 1, 1933. *200

707 A.2d 829 (1998) 349 Md. 190 HOLIDAY POINT MARINA PARTNERS v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, Maryland et al. No. 4, Sept. Term, 1996. Court of Appeals of Maryland. April 3, 1998. *831 Charles R. Schaller (Marian C. Hwang, Thomas E. Lynch, III, Miles & Stockbridge, on brief), Baltimore, for petitioner.

Davidson, J. In this paternity proceeding cross motions have been made as follows,: (1) The defendant seeks to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to section 61 of the New York City Criminal Courts Act in that at the time of the conception of the child and up to the present, the complainant was and is a married woman living with her husband, and consequently the child in question is not a

286 Md. 303 (1979) 407 A.2d 738 HARBOR ISLAND MARINA, INC. v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND [No. 10, September Term, 1979.] Court of Appeals of Maryland. Decided November 7, 1979. *305 The cause was argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, DIGGES, ELDRIDGE, ORTH and COLE, JJ.

Glennon, J. The plaintiff is the commissioner of public welfare of the city of New York. The defendant is the New York City Employees’ Retirement System. The plaintiff demands judgment: (1) That the defendant pay to him, pursuant to a warrant of seizure, *481dated February 27, 1934, the sum of $335.67, which represents the fl.ccnmn1fl.tPid deductions and interest to the

Baker, J. The action is brought by a group of physicians against the county of Yates to recover pay for professional services rendered to indigent persons without authorization by any officer or agent of the county, and, excepting for a few items, after refusal of the county welfare commissioner to authorize such services as a public or municipal obligation. The complaint alleges that the services were needed

Long, J. Relator is a citizen of this State, a resident of the city of St. Clair, and the owner of a number of shares of stock of the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, of the State of New York. • He is assessed upon the tax roll of said city $50,000 for personal property. This assessed valuation includes the shares of stock held by him in said railroad company. The real estate of said company, and its capital st

120 F.2d 850 (1941) PETTIBONE et al. v. COOK COUNTY, MINNESOTA. No. 11847. Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. June 16, 1941. *851 John D. Jenswold, of Duluth, Minn., and Charles Wangensteen, of Chisholm, Minn. (Austin & Wangensteen, of Chisholm, Minn., and Jenswold & Dahle, of Duluth, Minn., on the brief), for appe

1 Reported in 204 P.2d 514. Relator, King county, made application to this court for a writ of certiorari to review certain proceedings had before the superior court for that county in a certain condemnation action. The chief justice issued an order directing the Honorable James W. Hodson, the judge before whom the condemnation proceedings were had, to certify and return to this court

LAMM, C. J. This is a suit.by the county of Greene, on behalf of its school fund, instituted in June, 1912, to recover from Lydy, probate judge, the sum of $2972.26, fees collected by him under color of his office during the year 1911 in excess of his salary under section 10695, Revised Statutes 1909, and alleged to be wrongfully retained. Defendant answered in eleven paragraphs. Plaintiff moved to strike out

JONES, Circuit Judge. Two Water Control and Improvement Districts, political subdivisions of the State of Texas, and two individuals, filed a complaint against a Texas corporation and a number of individuals, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunction. Federal jurisdiction rests solely on 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331, which is:

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs Objections [Doc. No. 191] to United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s January 7, 2014, Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) [Doc. No. 189], The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc. No. 3] and Amen

Joseph M. Ellis, Judge' K.A.G. (“Father”) appeals from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Family Court Division, in which the court assumed jurisdiction over his minor child, K.G., and his minor stepchildren, K.L. and L.S., pursuant to § 211.081.1(1). 1 For the following reasons, the judgment is r

Filed 4/23/20 Modified and Certified for Pub. 5/15/20 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE FLEMING DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, A157038 Defendant and Appellant, v. (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCV-263702) ALFONS Y

230 S.W.3d 301 (2006) James L. ROBERTS and Cynthia A. Roberts, Appellants, v. Robert Dale BOYD; Kennie Mae Boyd and Donald Winningham, Appellees. No. CA 05-568. Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Divisions I, II. March 1, 2006. *302 Hodson, Woods & Snively, LLP, by: Bryan Sexton, Fayetteville, for appellants. Hall, Estill,

610 Argued and submitted September 27; reversed and remanded as to plaintiffs’ negligence claim, otherwise affirmed December 29, 2021 John M. MARSHALL and Karen M. Marshall, individuals; Patsy L. Marshall, an individual; Patsy L. Marshall, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard L. Marshall, Deceased; and Marshall Associated, LLC, an Oregon li

Filed 11/3/23 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LORETO A. LAGRISOLA et al., D080758 Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2021- NORTH AMERICAN FINANCIAL 00020798-CU-CO-CTL) CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA22-261 Filed 12 September 2023 Wake County, No. 21 CVS 7438 DUSTIN MICHAEL MCKINNEY, GEORGE JEREMY MCKINNEY and JAMES ROBERT TATE, Plaintiffs, v. GARY SCOTT GOINS and THE GASTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendants. Appeal by Plaintiffs and Intervenor State of North Carolina from an order entered 20 December 2021 by Judges R. Gregory Horne and Im

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA22-261 Filed 12 September 2023 Wake County, No. 21 CVS 7438 DUSTIN MICHAEL MCKINNEY, GEORGE JEREMY MCKINNEY and JAMES ROBERT TATE, Plaintiffs, v. GARY SCOTT GOINS and THE GASTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendants. Appeal by Plaintiffs and Intervenor State of North Carolina from an order entered 20 December 2021 by Judges R. Gregory Horne and Im

158 S.W.3d 733 (2004) David HARRIS v. CITY OF FORT SMITH, et al. No. CA 03-951. Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division II. April 14, 2004. *734 Hodson, Woods, & Snively, LLP, by: Michael Hodson, Fayetteville, for appellant. Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by: R. Christopher Lawson, Little Rock, for appellees. WEND