Cases

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA JOEL CARSON, Petitioner, v. HON. JO LYNN GENTRY, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA, Respondent/Judge, STATE OF ARIZONA EX REL. RACHEL MITCHELL, MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY, Real Party in Interes

SYKES, Circuit Judge. As a general rule, choses in action are freely alienable. But courts can — and indeed must — refuse to enforce certain contractual assignments on public-policy grounds. In Texas “assignments of choses in action that tend to increase and distort litigation” violate public policy and are invalid. State Farm, Fire & Cas. Co. v. Gandy, 925 S.W.2d 696, 711 (Tex. 1996). The question in this case is w

FEW, C.J. David Charles Joel appeals from a $275,000 jury verdict against him for legal malpractice in connection with his representation of Julie Tuten. Joel argues the trial court erred in: (1) granting a partial directed verdict for Tuten; (2) denying his directed verdict motion; and (3) denying his motion for a new trial nisi remittitur. We affirm. I. Facts and Procedural History J

PER CURIAM *933**184This appeal involves a challenge to state action based on, among other grounds, the Religious Aid Clause of Article I, Paragraph 3 of the State Constitution, specifically its prohibition against the use of public funds "for the mainte

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 21 2016, 5:44 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 431 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 432 OPINION In this case, we resolve the question of whether a prospective conservatee has

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: *569 T.B., a former student of Prince George's County Public Schools (PGCPS), alleges that the school district failed to provide him a free appropriate public education in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). While we agree with the a

OPINION AND ORDER SHIRAA. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge: I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs S.B. (“the Parent”) and E.G. bring this action against Defendant New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) seeking review of the September 23, 2013, administrative decision of State Review Officer Justyn P. Bates. (“SRO”), which substantially reversed the decision of Impartial Hearing Office

NOTICE: The attorneys on the attached list have the opportunity to comply with outstanding requirements prior to the effective date of the Supreme Court Order and not be administratively suspended. DATE: 03/22/2022 PENNSYLVANIA CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PAGE: 1 TIME: 14:20:03 NON-COMPLIANT LAWYERS USER ID: jilgenfr ACTIVE

173 F.Supp.2d 1288 (2001) Joel Keith HUNT, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MULBERRY, Frank R. Satchel, Jr., and Johnnie B. Smith, Defendants. No. 8:00-CV-2138-T-26TBM. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. February 8, 2001. *1289 Hank B. Campbell, Gray, Harris, Robinson, Lane, Trohn, Lakeland, FL, for Plaintiff. <

HINES, Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent because contrary to the opinion of the majority, the analysis of the Court of Appeals is neither ill-reasoned nor incomplete. That Court’s reversal of the trial court’s grants of summary judgment to defendants — the City of Atlanta and companies associated with a construction project at the Atlanta Hartsfield-J ackson International Airport — on breach of contrac

PER CURIAM. Pursuant to guilty pleas, the five appellants were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute marijuana. They raise various challenges to their sentences. In addition, one of the appellants appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for substitution of counsel, and another objects to the fine imposed by the court. We affirm.

689 F.Supp. 1501 (1988) HENDRICKS MUSIC COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff, v. STEINWAY, INC., d/b/a Steinway & Sons, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. No. 87 C 10582. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. June 24, 1988. *1502 *1503 James K. Gardner, George M. Hoffman

39 Cal.App.4th 946 (1995) 46 Cal. Rptr.2d 266 JOEL NEECKE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF MILL VALLEY et al., Defendants and Appellants. Docket No. A065966. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two. October 25, 1995. *948 COUNSEL Brekhus, Williams, Wester & Hall, Peter B

747 S.W.2d 873 (1988) TEXAS COOKIE COMPANY, et al., Appellants, v. HENDRICKS & PERALTA, INC., Appellee. No. 13-86-516-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi. February 18, 1988. Rehearing Denied March 17, 1988. *876 Richard W. Crews, Jr., Frank E. Weathered, Brin & Brin, Corpus Christi, for appellan

258 B.R. 376 (2001) In re ODOM ANTENNAS, INC., Debtor. M. Randy Rice, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. United States of America d/b/a Internal Revenue Service; Lori Holloway and James Holloway; State of Arkansas c/o Employment Security Division; Candy Stevens; Tammy Gattis; Richard Hatfield P.A.; Timothy O. Bunch a/k/a Tim Bunch; and The Law Office of Brad Hendricks, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 97-45729. Adversary No. 99-4194.

949 P.2d 77 (1997) PRINTZ SERVICES CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation d/b/a T.L. Printz Constructors, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. MAIN ELECTRIC, LTD.; Sprehe Interior Construction, Inc.; Connie J. Sullivan-Brown d/b/a C.J. Masonry, Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Appellees. and Placer Gold, Inc., a Colorado corporation; Rainbow Stew, Inc.; and Joel D. Roberts, Defendants-Appellees and Cross-Appellants, and Southern Group I

YOUNG, Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The relators have petitioned this Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. In substance they have claimed five separate grounds for relief: (1) The conditions of their present confinement constitute cruel and unusual punishment. (2) They were denied their right to be prosecuted only upon a Grand Jury indictment. (8) They were denied a preliminary hearing, inclu

2 B.R. 219 (1980) In re RICHARDS, Leonard and Carolyn, Bankrupt. Joel STEWART, Plaintiff, v. Dr. L.W. RICHARDS, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. B-79-00399. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. North Carolina. January 14, 1980. Brian Spears, Hirsch Friedman, P.C., Atlanta, Ga., Charles O. Peed, Stephens, Peed & Brown, Winston-Salem, N.C., for plaintiff. T. P

MEMORANDUM OPINION NITZAI. QUIÑONES ALEJANDRO, U.S.D.C. J. INTRODUCTION Presently before this Court is a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants1 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), in which they seek dismissal of the single claim asserted against them by Plaintiff Joel Hendrick (“Plaintiff’), under the Fair and Accurate Cr