Cases

[Cite as N. Canton v. Julius Brown, L.L.C., 2024-Ohio-5881.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JUDGES: CITY OF NORTH CANTON : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. : Hon. John W. Wise, J.

698 N.E.2d 237 (1998) 298 Ill. App.3d 167 232 Ill.Dec. 399 FULLER'S CAR WASH, INC., Oscar Salazar, and American States Insurance Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Lamkin Leather and Rubber Company, and Mildred Kisel, Defendants-Appellees. No. 2-97-1156. Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

[Cite as Fuller v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2020-Ohio-468.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Cassaundra Fuller, : Administrator of the Estate of Abell Fuller, II, : No. 19AP-410 Appellant-Appellant, : (C.P.C. No. 15CV-3024) v

247 Ga. 423 (1981) 276 S.E.2d 600 RUCKER v. FULLER et al. 37248. Supreme Court of Georgia. Decided April 8, 1981. Cliff L. Jolliff, Michael A. Mogill, Eric G. Kocher, Ayres M. Gardner, William J. Cobb, John L. Cromartie, for appellant. Jack Carey, Richard Storey, Julius M. Hulsey, for appellees. CLARKE, Justice.

PER CURIAM. Appellant appeals from a judgment * of the United States Claims Court dismissing appellant’s petition. We affirm. The flocks in eight affected counties were appraised and destroyed, compensation was paid to the owners, and the approximately 160 ranches involved were cleaned and disin

DECISION BUEHLER, Senior Judge: At his trial by special court-martial with members, the accused was convicted, contrary to his pleas, of one specification each of sale and possession of marijuana and one specification of an attempt to sell amphetamines, in violation of Articles 134 and 80,10 U.S.C. §§ 934 and 880, Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was also found guilty, pursuant to his plea, of one spe

Herlihy, P. J. This is an appeal by the defendants from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Washington County, on April 1, 1970, which granted the plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The complaint seeks to enjoin the defendants from proceeding to appropriate 3.27 acres out of a total proposed appropriation <

Per Curiam. By order dated November 29, 1968, appellants have been adjudged guilty of criminal contempt of court by reason of their willful disobedience on November 18 and 19,1968 of the temporary restraining provisions of an order dated November 14,1968, as supplemented by an order dated November 16,1968, which enjoined and restrained them “ from engaging in a strike or withholding services, or causing, instigating, t

S & J Serv. Ctr., Inc. v Commerce Commercial Group, Inc. (2019 NY Slip Op 09049) S & J Serv. Ctr., Inc. v Commerce Commercial Group, Inc. 2019 NY Slip Op 09049 Decided on December 18, 2019 Appellate Division, Second Department

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 600 The following charges were refused to contestants: "(1) I charge you, gentlemen of the Jury, the solemnly declared will of the testator cannot be allowed to stand or fall on the supposed motive of the testator. "(2) I charge you, gentlemen of the Jury, that if you believe all of the evidence in this c

729 N.W.2d 377 (2007) 2007 SD 25 Ginger VOLLMER, Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORE, INC. and National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh, PA, Appellees. No. 23948. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs May 23, 2006. Decided March 7, 2007. *379 Michael J. Simpson of Julius & Si

FOURTH DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., ANDREWS and BOGGS, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. (Court of Appeals Rule 4 (b) and Rule 37 (b), February 21, 2008) http://www.gaappeals.us/rules

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1100 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1101 Plaintiffs Betsy Ruklick and Joseph Ruklick, her husband, appeal from orders dismissing with prejudice their personal-i

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ITG BRANDS, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) REYNOLDS AMERICAN, INC. and ) R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendants. ) ) C.A. No. 2017-0129-LWW REYNOLDS AMERICAN, INC. and ) R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACC

182 Conn. 339 (1980) FRANCIS TEDESCO v. JULIUS C. PAGANO, INC., ET AL. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued October 14, 1980. Decision released November 11, 1980. COTTER, C. J., BOGDANSKI, SPEZIALE, PETERS and HEALEY, JS. Edward T. Dodd, Jr., with whom, on the brief, was Jeremiah M. Keefe, for the appellant (plaintiff). Terence D. Mari

499 F.Supp. 1096 (1980) Doris Fuller CHILDS, Eleanor Fuller Parson, Natalie Stocking, Priscilla Parson and Katherine Marrs, beneficiaries of the Judson M. Fuller Trust, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL BANK OF AUSTIN, an Illinois Corporation and Trustee of the Judson M. Fuller Trust; Carey, Filter & White, a partnership; Robert F. Carey, an individual partner; Thomas F. Carey, an individual partner; Edward M. White, an individual partner; Edmund P. Bo

589 N.W.2d 925 (1999) 1999 SD 31 Sandra ZUKE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PRESENTATION SISTERS, INC., d/b/a McKennah Hospital, and GAB Robins North America, Inc., Defendants and Appellees. No. 20455. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs October 20, 1998. Decided March 10, 1999. *92

Application for a writ of prohibition unanimously denied and the petition dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Lane, Steuer, Tilzer and Macken, JJ.

ZEHMER, Judge. Petitioner, Nelle Landrum, petitions for a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory discovery order entered in her medical malpractice case against the respondents. The order compels production of two witness statements obtained for her counsel by petitioner’s husband. We grant review and quash the order because petitioner has demonstrated that the order substantially departs from the essential requiremen

OPINION AND ORDER WALINSKI, Senior District Judge. This action comes before the Court on defendant’s, C & M Electric, motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6) and plaintiff’s opposition thereto. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 8, AF