Cases

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 13-1044 Filed July 30, 2014 DOUGLAS V. STENOIEN, LAVOLA STENOIEN, SHERYL STENOIEN, and GWENDOLYN BROWN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. GARY STENOIEN, LORRI ANN STENOIEN a/k/a LORRI ANN REINKE, and TAMMY SWANSON, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sac County, William

FILED Dec 04 2017, 6:03 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals

McGRANERY, District Judge. This is. a. seaman’s action against Sprague Steamship Company, which serviced the vessel S.S. William Tyler in September, 1944, under a General Agency agreement with' the United States, through the War Shipping Administration. .Plaintiff was a member, of the crew of the ship from September, 1944, to January, 1945, and suffered. stomach . disorders subsequently. Plaintiff b

* * * * * * * * * * The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the briefs and arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence and upon reconsideration the Full Commission REVERSES the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner. * * * * * * * * * *

The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Dollar and the material submitted to the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the Opinion and Award, except with the modification of the attorney's fee sanction issue. ****************** The Full Commission finds as fact an

KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge. This is an action brought by a seaman under the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S. C.A. § 741 et seq., (1) for maintenance and cure and (2) for damages for the ■withholding of maintenance after the termination of the voyage. (I) The libellant is entitled to maintenance and cure, substantially as claimed. He joined the respondent’s vessel “William

*********** The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Dollar and the briefs and arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, and upon reconsideration, the Full Commission modifies and affirms the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner. **********

597 F.Supp.2d 1354 (2009) BISHOP'S PROPERTY & INVESTMENTS, LLC, and Robert Wayne Bishop, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant. Case No. 4:05-CV-126(CDL). United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Columbus Division. February 6, 2009.

I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion is convincingly written based on findings that: (1) plaintiff needed to find another doctor because he could not see the authorized doctor, Dr. Rhyne, and (2) defendants did not present evidence to show that plaintiff was employable. These suggestions were contained in plaintiff's brief and/or in oral argument to the Full Commission. The record, however, does not support these and other findings by the majority. The essential question pre

Upon review of all of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the award, the Full Commission AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner as follows: The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties in the Form 21 Agreement for C

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY, Judge. |2This is a suit by a bank on a promissory note, in which the district court granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment, finding that one of the guarantors of the note is liable for the amounts incurred, and granting attorney’s fees in amount of $10,000 to the bank. The defendant appeals and the bank answers the appeal. We affirm. FACTS On June 23, 200

Upon review of all the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission MODIFIES and AFFIRMS the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner as follows: The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following which were entered into by the parties in a pre-trial agreement, filed on September 1

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; APPENDIX ‘A” The Hawaii Constitution specifies the use of permanent residents as the relevant population base in apportioning state legislative seats. In a 2012 decision, the Hawaii Supreme Court laid out the appropriate method for determining permanent residents by extracting non-resident military personnel and their dependents, and non-resident students from the

OPINION Opinion by Justice LANG-MIERS. The City of Dallas filed these interlocutory appeals from orders denying its pleas to the jurisdiction in four lawsuits filed against the City by current and former police officers, firefighters, and rescue officers (the Officers) alleging that the City breached its contract with them regarding their pay. We consolidated the appeals for the purpose of

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; APPENDICES “A” & “B” PER CURIAM: The Hawaii Constitution specifies the use of permanent residents as the relevant population base in apportioning state legislative seats. In a 2012 decision, the Hawaii Supreme Court laid out the appropriate method for determining permanent

Affirm in part; Reverse and Render in part; Remand and Opinion Filed August 13, 2013 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas __________________________________ NO. 05-12-00963-CV CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, Appellant V. ANTHONY ARREDONDO, CHARLES S. SWANER, JAM

Affirm in part; Reverse and Render in part; Remand and Opinion Filed August 13, 2013 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas __________________________________ NO. 05-12-00963-CV CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, Appellant V. ANTHONY ARREDONDO, CHARLES S. SWANER, JAM

[Cite as 07/01/2002 Case Announcements, 2002-Ohio-3343.] The Supreme Court of Ohio CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS July 1, 2002 DISCIPLINARY CASES 2001-0412. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cleary. Patricia A. Cleary is reinstated to the practice of law. MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS 2002-0902. Butcher v. Lewis. Stark App. No. 2001CA00219, 2002-Ohi

OPINION LUONGO, Chief Judge. In this action brought pursuant to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, plaintiff, Joseph Larry, asserts various claims arising out of an alleged violation of seniority rights guaran*712teed to him by a collective bargaining agreement entered into between defendant, Penn Truck Aids, Inc. (PTA),

Filed: January 28, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1740 (1:08-cv-01076-AMD SHIRLEY M. BARBOUR; HARRY M. BARKER; ANTHONY BURTON; WILLIAM J. CLINE; BARBARA FAULKNER; RAYMOND N. FLECK, JR.; ARTHUR HAMILTON, II; DANIEL L. HAMM; TROY L. HARRIS; GARY LANDAU; VINCENT MARRA; PEGGY A. MURPHY; RICHARD DOUGLAS PERMENTER; PATRICIA PIERS