Cases

Pierron, J.: Ernest Douglas (Doug) and Leslie R. Seifert appeal the trial court’s denial of their counterclaim for enforcement of *20restrictive covenants in a transfer of property from 1978. The Seiferts argue the restrictive covenants are enforceable against Jeremiah 29:11, Inc., (Jeremiah); the deed was a deed poll or warranty deed and not an indenture; the transaction d

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1945 STEPHEN V. KOLBE; ANDREW C. TURNER; WINK’S SPORTING GOODS, INCORPORATED; ATLANTIC GUNS, INCORPORATED; ASSOCIATED GUN CLUBS OF BALTIMORE, INCORPORATED; MARYLAND SHALL ISSUE, INCORPORATED; MARYLAND STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED; NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED; MARYLAND

211 S.W.3d 118 (2006) Lawrence Paul MASERANG, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CRAWFORD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendant, and Missouri State Criminal Records Repository, Defendant-Appellant. No. 27675. Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two. December 20, 2006. *119 Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., and Th

498 F.3d 49 (2007) Daniel B. LOCKE, et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Edward A. KARASS, State Controller; Maine State Employees Association, SEIU Local 1989, et al., Defendants, Appellees. No. 06-1747. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Heard November 9, 2006. Decided August 8, 2007. *50 W. James You

SELYA Circuit Judge. This appeal arises out of a relentless effort by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to infiltrate, and eventually to smash, the New England branch of La Cosa Nostra (LCN). To achieve its goal, the FBI struck a Faustian bargain with two reputed organized crime figures, James ‘Whitey” Bulger and Stephen Flemmi. We concentrate on Flemmi, because he is th

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

O’Neill, J., dissenting. {¶ 30} This case can be reduced to a single narrow issue: Does a city council have the power to limit the municipal court’s jurisdiction in “traffic camera” cases and confer jurisdiction on a nonelected hearing officer? The answer is a resounding no. As the Sixth District correctly concluded, one need only look at R.C. 1901.20(A)(

[1] OPINION [2] This matter came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order issued to the plaintiffs, Geller Associates, Inc., and Michael Strahm Architects, to appear and show cause why their appeal should not be summarily denied and dismissed. They had appealed from the granting of the motion of the defendant, Fleet National Bank (Fleet), for summary judgment in the Superior Court. [3] Lee's Wharf Realty Co., Inc. (Lee's Wharf), had granted to Fleet a first

Durant v State of New York (2021 NY Slip Op 03826) Durant v State of New York 2021 NY Slip Op 03826 Decided on June 16, 2021 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuan

[1] OPINION [2] This litigation arises from the decision of the town of Middletown's Planning Board of Review (board) to reject the subdivision plat plan submitted by James W. Kirby (Kirby). Kirby appealed the decision. The Superior Court, sitting without a jury, entered a judgment sustaining his appeal and reversing the board's decision. The board and Peckham Bros. Co., Inc. (Peckham) appeal the judgment of the Superior Court. [3] The central issue on appeal is

Matter of Alexis X. (Tara Y.) (2023 NY Slip Op 06568) Matter of Alexis X. (Tara Y.) 2023 NY Slip Op 06568 Decided on December 21, 2023 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judicia

248 S.W.3d 720 (2008) STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Stephen K. COX, Appellant. No. 28440. Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two. April 4, 2008. Jason Coatney, Springfield, for appellant. *721 Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Anna L. Bunch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent. ROBERT S. BARN

OPINION AND ORDER Gary P. Sullivan, Chief Justice. FACTUAL OVERVIEW AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The plaintiff, Wolf Point Community organization (“WPCO”), is a duly recognized community organization established under authority of Article VII, § 91 of the Constitution and By-laws of Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, and formally approved by resolutio

972 A.2d 643 (2009) William A. HILLEY, et al. v. Stephen T. LAWRENCE.[1] No. 2007-320-Appeal. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. June 19, 2009. *646 Jeremiah R. Leary, Esq., Tiverton, for Plaintiff. James P. Marusak, Esq., Providence, for Defendant. Present: GOLDBERG, Acting C.J., FLAHERTY, SUTTELL, ROBINSON,

432 A.2d 670 (1981) MBT CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. KELHEN CORPORATION. No. 79-83-Appeal. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. July 15, 1981. *672 Corcoran, Peckham & Hayes, Kathleen Managhan, Patrick O'N. Hayes, Jr., Newport, for plaintiff. Moore, Virgadamo & Lynch, Ltd., Jeremiah C. Lynch, Jr., Stephen A. Haire, Newport, for

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 24-1931 JEREMIAH NICHOLLS, WALTER GOODROW, WESLEY DINSMORE, RICHARD RUPPERT, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. VEOLIA WATER CONTRACT OPERATIONS USA, INC., f/k/a Suez Water Environmental Services, Inc., Defendant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

[1] ORDER [2] This matter was before a three-judge panel of the court pursuant to an order issued to the petitioners to appear and show cause why the petition for certiorari should not be denied. *Page 19 [3] After hearing counsel thereon and reviewing the petition and memoranda submitted, it is the conclusion of the court that no cause has been shown and the petition for writ of certiorari is denied. [4] Justice BEVILACQUA

ORDER This matter was before a three-judge panel of the court pursuant to an order issued to the petitioners to appear and show cause why the petition for certiorari should not be denied. *19After hearing counsel thereon and reviewing the petition and memoranda submitted, it is the conclusion of the court that no cause has been shown and the petition for writ of

JACOBS, Circuit Judge: The five appellants, all related by blood or marriage, were convicted after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Thompson, J.) of various money-laundering offenses. At trial, the government demonstrated that over the course of many years the group had laundered money for another family member,

Kennedy, J., dissenting. {¶ 33} Respectfully, I dissent. Civ.R. 23 does not require a trial court to recite talismanic words when certifying a class action. Nor is there any case authority imposing such a requirement on the trial court. The trial court is, however, required to “undertake a rigorous analysis” that may include probing the merits of the claim before it certifies a class action. Stammco, L.L.C.