Cases

FAIR, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶ 1. Elizabeth and Matthew Graham filed a “Complaint for Discovery, Accounting, and Return of Property” against their former attorney and his law firm. The chancellor recognized that the complaint sought information supporting claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion or replevin of property, “and/or additio

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

John Wheeler, Jr., the plaintiff below, appeals from a partial summary judgment in favor of James Bice, one of the defendants below. We dismiss the appeal. *Page 1078 In March 2007, Wheeler and Bice engaged in a business transaction involving a house on Lott Road in Chunchula that was owned by Bice ("the house"); however, Wheeler and Bice disagree regarding the terms they agreed to in that transaction. Wheeler, who says that he negotiated t

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2015-CA-00105-SCT ANDREA LEIGH TAYLOR v. THOMAS ROY TAYLOR, JR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/13/2014 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHN ANDREW HATCHER TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: MICHAEL LEE DULANEY JAMES ROGER FRANKS, JR. COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: UNION COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEY

591 S.E.2d 698 (2004) 42 Va. App. 282 Barrell A. WHEELER v. Cathleen N. WHEELER. Record No. 0034-03-4. Court of Appeals of Virginia, Richmond. January 20, 2004. *699 James A. Watson, II (Richard J. Colten; Colten, Cummins, Watson & Vincent P.C., on briefs), for appellant.

ORDER AND OPINION JOHN W. SEDWICK, SENIOR JUDGE I. MOTION PRESENTED At docket 17, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner filed a response at docket 24. Respondents filed a reply at docket 27. Oral argument was not requested and would not be of assistance to the court.

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs brought suit against Dr. Paul Wheeler and Johns Hopkins Health System et al. for Wheeler's actions as an expert witness in administrative hearings for the Federal Black Lung Program. This lawsuit included a federal claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Pub. L. No. 91-452, Title IX (1970) (codified at

Karen LeCraft Henderson, Circuit Judge: In January 2017, acting pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9608 (b), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed setting financial respo

BOLIN, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part in case no. 1070487). I concur in all aspects of the majority opinion except Part VII concerning the payment of the special-master fee. A. Lee Miller III served as chief of the legal division of the Department of Finance from January 1987 to September 2003. After resigning from the Department of Fi

CARLTON, J., for the Court: ¶ 1. Donald and Natalie Robohm appeal Jackson County Circuit Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Gulf Oaks Condominium Association Inc., Wheeler Roofing Inc., and Belfor USA Group Inc. (collectively, Gulf Oaks). The Robohms argue that Gulf Oaks failed to provide them with proper notice of the hearing on the summary-judgment motion, and that the trial court erred in applying

Conservation Security Program; National Resources Conservation Service; Breach of Contract Action; Statutory Provisions Not Incorporated into Contracts; Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted. OPINION AND ORDER WHEELER, Judge. The key question presented in this ca

232 P.3d 1249 (2010) In re the Marriage of: David RAMSAY, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Victoria WHEELER-RAMSAY, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 09-0045. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department B. May 20, 2010. *1252 The Cavanagh Law Firm, P.A. By Christina S. Hamilton, Phoenix, Attorneys for Petitioner/Appellant.

BELSON, Senior Judge: This is an appeal by a hospital and a physician from a large judgment against them in a medical malpractice case. Ap-pellee Crystal “Wheeler suffered various medical complications as the result of a Rathke’s cleft cyst behind her left eye, which went undetected for nearly ten years despite its appearance on a 1996 MRI report. “Wheeler brought a medical-malpractice suit against the appellants, Marilyn Mc

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-11-00168-CV ROBERT HATFIELD APPELLANT V. CLIFTON H. MORRIS, JR., DANIEL APPELLEES E. BERCE, JOHN CLAY, IAN M. CUMMING, A.R. DIKE, JAMES H. GREER, DOUGLAS K. HIGGINS, KENNETH H. JONES, JR., ROBERT B. STURGES, JUSTIN R. WHEELER, GENERAL MOTORS

FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States Claims Court dismissing the appellants’ tax refund suits covering federal income taxes for the taxable years 1975 and 1976. The Claims Court held that amounts paid by an employer’s educational benefits trust to the appellants’ children for college expenses

02-11-168-CV

SILBERMAN, Judge. Carl Wheeler appeals his judgment and prison releasee reoffender (PRR) sentence for aggravated assault and Ms judgment and sentence for improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon. We affirm in all respects but write only to address the issue of the applicability of PRR sentencing for the offense of aggravated assault. Wheeler’s aggravated assault conviction arose from an incident in which

PER CURIAM. This case is reversed and remanded so that the trial court may rule on those grounds stated in appellant’s motion for post conviction relief which the court erroneously held to be abandoned. We affirm to the extent that the trial court ruled on the merits of the motion relating to the grounds that the Court set for hearing. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

MARK H. COHEN, United States District Judge This case comes before the Court on Defendant AMEC Foster Wheeler Programs, Inc.'s ("AMEC") Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7]. For the reasons explained below, AMEC's motion is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND In June 2015, the United States Army Corps of Engineers issued a solicitation for a construction project in Poland (the "Project").

FILED Nov 07 2024, 8:41 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals