Cases

OPINION CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff, Jody Holman, seeks our review of the district court’s dismissal of her second amended complaint for failure to state a claim against Defendant, Rock Financial Corporation, under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-15, and subsequent denial of her post-dismissal request to file a third amended complaint. For the following reasons, we REVERSE the dist

OPINION CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Judy Holman appeals the May 27, 2003 order of the district court denying her motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (“TILA”), and the March 31, 2003 order granting Defendant Rock Financial Corporation’s motion for summary judgm

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS James A. Parker, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE In DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 26) (Motion), Defendant Robert McClelland (Defendant) asks the Court to dismiss all claims asserted in the FIRST AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS (RICO) ACT; NEGLIGENCE; BR

WIDENER, Circuit Judge: These are appeals from the district court’s disposition of a habeas corpus petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court considered the three grounds for relief stated in the petition and found that two grounds were without merit. The court, however, granted the writ on the basis of the third ground for relief after determining that petitioner had been denied effective assistance of cou

PER CURIAM. *554In case no. 1130590, Kathryn L. Honea appeals from the denial of her motion to vacate an arbitration award entered in favor of Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. ("Raymond James"), and Bernard Michaud, an employee of Raymond James (hereinafter referred to collectively as "RJFS"). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and reman

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-1587 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES F. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

OPINION EVELYN V. KEYES, Justice. Appellees, Robert G. Taylor II, Joseph F. Archer, Claiborne Bruce, Allam Alshay-eb, Russ Himel, Raymond Chachere, Dennis McLaughlin, Dale Gorman, Louay Jou-barani, Seman Matta, and Carlo Congelosi (collectively, “the Investors”), sued appellants, James R. Cleveland, Paul R. Cleveland, Kellie L. Dorman, Nicos Energy, LLC,

FISHER, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The majority concludes that the Department of Public Welfare cannot treat the annuity that Mrs. James purchased on September 12, 2005, as an available resource in determining Mr. James’s Medicaid eligibility. I respectfully dissent. I believe that in order to appraise the amount of available resources, our focus must be on the date of Mr. James’s admission to the nursing home

18-2955-cv, 18-2959-cv James H. Fischer v. Sandra F. Forrest, et al. 1 In the 2 United States Court of Appeals 3 For the Second Circuit 4 5 6 August Term 2019 7 8 Nos. 18-2955-cv, 18-2959-cv 9 10 JAMES H. FISCHER 11 12

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 24-3248, 24-3249, & 25-1024 LSP TRANSMISSION HOLDINGS II, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JAMES F. HUSTON, Chairman, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, et al., Defendants-Appellants, a

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 24-3248, 24-3249, & 25-1024 LSP TRANSMISSION HOLDINGS II, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JAMES F. HUSTON, Chairman, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, et al., Defendants-Appellants, a

OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM. Appellant, James Inge, was convicted of murder in the first degree and aggravated robbery. In this direct appeal * he raises five allegations of error: (1) *325the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to support his conviction; (2) the identity of appellant as the assailant was not

12/27/2019 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 22, 2019 Session JAMES F. LOGAN, JR., ET AL. v. THE ESTATE OF MILDRED CANNON ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Bradley County No. 2011-CV-48 Frank

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Jul 28 2016, 9:52 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals court except f

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 04a0394p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X

Matter of Savannah F. (2024 NY Slip Op 05860) Matter of Savannah F. 2024 NY Slip Op 05860 Decided on November 21, 2024 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

In re Z.F. & B.F. No. 1609, Sept. Term 2024 Opinion by Leahy, J. Family Law > Children in Need of Assistance > Reasonable Efforts In Child in Need of Assistance (“CINA”) cases, a department of social services is generally required under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., to make reasonable accommodations for parents with disabilities in rendering reunification efforts, as long as the parents make such disabilities, as well as the accommodations they require, known

McGOWAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Appellant James Notarantonio was convicted in the District Court of Rhode Island for violating various statutes that prohibit making, or conspiring to make, false statements in connection with programs involving federal funds. Mr. Notarantonio made the statements in connection with his work on a construction project financed with a loan guaranteed

MANION, Circuit Judge. As part of their residential property, Gary and Inge White owned two small apartments over their garage. Over a period of 32 years they annually rented the apartments to various tenants. During that time Gary White became owner of over 80% of the shares of a trucking company, which, after several years of operation, became bankrupt and ceased doing busines

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion. In the Supreme Cou