Cases

3 F.Supp.2d 267 (1998) Barbara MELING, Plaintiff, v. ST. FRANCIS COLLEGE and Donald Sullivan, Defendants. No. 95-CV-3739 (JG). United States District Court, E.D. New York. March 31, 1998. *268 *269 *270 Lee F. Bantle, Jonathan S. Abady, Beldock, Levine &

Judge KATZMANN concurs by separate opinion. GLEESON, United States District Judge. This appeal concerns the availability of a qualified immunity defense for defendant James F. Abromaitis, the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (“DECD”), who allegedly violated the constitutional rights of plaintiffs African Trade & Information Center, Inc., Mohamou

671 F.Supp.2d 365 (2008) Racky RAMCHAIR, Petitioner, v. James CONWAY, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent. No. 04 CV 4241(JG). United States District Court, E.D. New York. April 4, 2008. *366 Frank Handelman, Esq., New York, NY, for Petitioner. Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General, State of New York, by: Dan

53 N.J. 313 (1969) 250 A.2d 580 JAMES P. BOWLER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued December 17, 1968. Decided March 3, 1969. *317 Mr. Robert C. Gruhin argued the cause for appellant. Mr. Stanle

HARDY, Judge of the Superior Court (dissenting in part). I concur with the other members of the Court that the order of the Superior Court quashing the writ of general execution should be affirmed because the judgment plainly did not comply with the requirements of A.R.S. 33-725, subsec. A. However, I must strongly dissent from their ruling that the judgment determined that the plaintiff was n

478 F.Supp.2d 385 (2007) Carlos PORTALATIN, Petitioner, v. Harold GRAHAM, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility, Respondent. No. 06 CV 5002(JG). United States District Court, E.D. New York. March 22, 2007. *386 Joshua Michael Levine, Appellate Advocates, New York, NY, for the Petitioner. Charles J. Hynes, District A

Gleeson, J., This case came before the court on plaintiff’s petition and rule on War*324ner Company, Inc., and General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers and Yardmen of Local 470 to show cause why certain grievances should not be processed in accordance with an existing labor contract between two defendants. Plaintiffs are members of defendant union and employes of defendant

666 F.Supp.2d 274 (2009) CENTURY 21 REAL ESTATE LLC, Plaintiff, v. BERCOSA CORP. and Pedro Bernard, Defendants. No. 08-CV-3175 (JG)(JO). United States District Court, E.D. New York. September 18, 2009. *278 Matthew Joseph Koster, Ronald A. Giller, Gordon & Rees, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff. ORDER</

956 F.Supp. 326 (1997) Dorothy GOOSBY, Samuel Prioleau, Xavier Morales, and Miladys Morales, Plaintiffs, v. TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, NEW YORK, Gregory P. Peterson, Richard A. Zagarino, Curtis Fisher, Joseph Ra, Anthony Santino, Joseph Kearney, in their official capacities as members of the Town Board of the Town of Hempstead, Nassau County Board of Elections, John DeGrace and Steven Sabbeth, in their official capacities as Commissione

572 F.Supp. 928 (1983) In re CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS SECURITIES LITIGATION. No. 82 C 4712. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. May 6, 1983. Lowell E. Sachnoff, Dean A. Dickie, William Gleeson, Barry S. Rosen, Brian D. Roche, Sachnoff, Weaver & Rubenstein, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., Richard D. Greenfield, Nicholas E. Chimicles, Robert P. Frutkin, Marcy C. Panzer, Gr

This matter originated in this Court on the filing of a report by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education (the “Commission”) pursuant to Gov. Bar R. X, Sec. 6, Div. (A)(1)(b) and Div. (A)(2)(d). The Commission recommended the imposition of sanctions against certain attorneys, including the above-named respondent, for failure to comply with the provisions of Gov. Bar R. X, *1469Attorney Conti

(2008) Jose SOTO, Petitioner, v. Superintendent James CONWAY, Respondent. No. 06 CV 2979 (RJD). United States District Court, E.D. New York. July 15, 2008. MEMORANDUM & ORDER DEARIE, Chief Judge. Pro se petitioner, Jose Soto, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons stated below, the petition is

572 F.Supp. 931 (1983) In re CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS SECURITIES LITIGATION. No. 82 C 4712. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. June 21, 1983. Lowell E. Sachnoff, Dean A. Dickie, William Gleeson, Barry S. Rosen, Brian D. Roche, Sachnoff, Weaver & Rubenstein, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., Richard D. Greenfield, Nicholas E. Chimicles, Robert P. Frutkin, Marcy C. Panzer,

962 F.2d 1177 22 Fed.R.Serv.3d 663 James Louis ADVEY, et al., Plaintiffs,Horace Lee Bratcher; Daisy Marie Frazier Bratcher; JohnLeonard Bratcher; Edwina Faye Mayfield Bratcher; FrancisPaul Creger; Patricia Ann Gregory Creger; Ray AnthonyDickens; Iris Elaine Bennett Dickens; Billy Norman Hibdon;Thelma White Davis Hibdon; Cecil Ray Hunter; Sinda BarberHunter; James Earl McPheron; Shirle

889 N.E.2d 15 (2008) BURNS-KISH FUNERAL HOMES, INC., Thomas J. Burns, individually, and Jean Burns, individually, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. KISH FUNERAL HOMES, LLC, Kevin Kish, individually, and Patricia Kish, individually, Appellees-Defendants, Patricia Kish, Counterclaimant, v. Thomas J. Burns, individually, and Jean Burns, individually, Counter-Defendants. No. 45A03-0710-CV-486. Court of

GOODRICH, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from a conviction for income tax evasion under Sections 145(b) and 3793(b) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code. 1 The defendant makes several points as a ground for reversal. The first is that the evidence was in

KIRKPATRICK, District Judge. The defendants in these two proceedings for denaturalization (tried together) are husband and wife. In each case the complaint charges fraud in that the statements of intention to reside permanently in the United States and attachment of the principles of the Constitution of the United States in the petition for naturalization were false and that each defendant, when taking the oath of allegiance,

GOODRICH, Circuit Judge. The defendant was convicted in the District Court of a violation of Section 145(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 145(b). He makes three points in his argument for reversal. We shall discuss them in order. 1. The first point has to do with the question of what acts constitute a crime punishable as a felony by the terms

29 N.J. 236 (1959) 148 A.2d 722 DAVID ENNIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. JAMES PETRY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued February 2, 1959. Decided March 2, 1959. *237 Mr. Alastair J. Sellar argued the cause for plaintiff-appellant (Messrs. Mead, Gleeson, Hansen & Pantag

HILLMAN, Senior District Judge, dissenting. I concur in the majority’s holding on the statute of limitations issue involving plaintiff Sparks in Case No. 90-6319. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s resolution of the jurisdictional issue as to the group of plaintiffs who filed their notice of appeal in Case No. 90-6233 during the pendency of Vanderbilt’s Rule 59(e) motion.