Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “KHAN, M.D. v. Stephen”
People v. Khanpublic domain
Digitally signed by Reporter of Decisions Reason: I attest to Illinois Official Reports the accuracy and
State Oil Co. v. Khanpublic domain
522 U.S. 3 (1997) STATE OIL CO. v. KHAN et al. No. 96-871. United States Supreme Court. Argued October 7, 1997. Decided November 4, 1997. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT *4 *5 O'Connor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.</
United States v. Khanpublic domain
MINER, Circuit Judge. Defendants-appellants Deborah Williams, Rosaly Saba Khalil, Lancaster Lo and Gilbert Ross appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence entered on November 10, 1993, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Martin, J.) following a jury trial. Defendant-appellant Mohammed Sohail Khan appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered on December 3,1993, in the
Estate of Susan J. Moulder v. Park, M.D.public domain
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE The Estate of SUSAN J. ) MOULDER, MICHAEL J. ) MOULDER, as Executor for the ) Estate and Individually, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) C.A. No. N20C-03-299 AML ) SUJUNG PARK, M.D., )
Khan v. Tax Commissionpublic domain
Memorandum Decision TOOMEY, Judge: T1 Petitioner Nasrulla Khan disputes the Utah State Tax Commission's determination of his 2011 renter's refund. Although we disagree with the Commission's calculation in this case, we ultimately agree with its conclusion that Khan is entitled to a refund of $106. We therefore decline to disturb the Commis-ston's determin
Khan v. Gonzalespublic domain
Memorandum Opinion Thomas F. Hogan, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff Zafar H. Khan filed this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”); the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq., the Civil Rights Attorney’s Award Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
Lauren Hawse v. Faisal Khanpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1960 ___________________________ Lauren Hawse; Frank R. O’Brien, Jr.; Jean M. O’Brien; Stephen J. Pieper, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants, v. Sam Page, in his capacity as County Executive of St. Lo
191 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 1999) ALAN J. MISHLER, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellee,v.ROBERT D. CLIFT, M.D., Defendant,andNEVADA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS; THEODORE JACOBS, M.D.; ANTHONY J. CARTER, M.D.; M. RONALD AVERY, JR., M.D.; RICHARD BAKER, M.D.; IKRAM U. KHAN, M.D.; KATHLEEN EBNER; EVA G. SIMMONS; LEO A. WILNER, Defendants-Appellants.ALAN J. MISHLER, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellee,v.ROBERT D. CLIFT, M.D., Defendant-Appellant,
Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. v. Khan (In Re Khan)public domain
463 B.R. 786 (2011) In re Shakeel S. KHAN, Ayesha Khan, Debtors. Racetrac Petroleum, Inc., Plaintiff v. Shakeel S. Khan, et al., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 10-15387-SSM. Adversary No. 10-1431. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. August 2, 2011. *788 Paul J. Feinman, Esquire, Petty, Livingston,
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JESSICA MIDDLETON, and ) WILLIAM MIDDLETON, Husband ) and Wife, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vv. ) C.A. No.: N18C-03-120 VLM ) KHAN OBSTETRICS AND ) GYNECOLOGY ASSOCIATES, ) P.A., and NASREEN KHAN, D.O., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Submitted: May 26, 2021 Decided: July 16, 2021 Upon Consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine on Comparative Negligence, GRANTED; Upon Consideration of Defendants’ Motion in Limine on Admissibility of Smoking Evidence,
Drozdzal v. Khanpublic domain
OPINION OF THE COURT Lawrence E. Kahn, J. In the case at bar, motions have been made on behalf of the defendants, County of Albany and City of Albany, for orders pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 7) dismissing *30the complaint upon the ground that, as to said defendants, it fails to state a cause of action. The action seeks money d
Stephen Fon v. Merrick Garlandpublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEPHEN TAMUFOR FON, No. 20-73166 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A203-679-900 MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review
Stephen Fon v. Merrick Garlandpublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEPHEN TAMUFOR FON, No. 20-73166 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A203-679-900 MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review
7-Eleven, Inc. v. Khanpublic domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge: Pending before the Court are the objections of the Defendants Tariq A. Khan, Senita Khan, Farouq Khan a/k/a/ Shahid F. Khan, and Imran M. Khan s/h/a Iram M. Khan (collectively “the Khans”) to the August 19, 2013 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay. The Report recommended that this Court grant the Plaintiff 7-Eleven, Inc.’
Khan v. Midland Funding LLCpublic domain
ORDER RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, District Judge: The Court is in receipt of the attached joint letter, dated July 17, 2013, from Plaintiff, Defendant Midland Funding, LLC (“Midland”); Defendants Peter T. Roach & Associates, P.C., Peter T. Roach, and Timothy J. Murtha (the “Roach Defendants”); and non-party Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C. (“EEC”), regarding EEC’s claim of privilege over (1) its
Brushy Creek Enterprises, Inc. and Tahseen Khan, Individually v. Heller First Capital Corp.public domain
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-07-00542-CV Brushy Creek Enterprises, Inc. and Tahseen Khan, Individually, Appellants v.
United States v. Jan Dil Khanpublic domain
GEORGE C. PRATT, Circuit Judge: This case, which arises out of a scheme to smuggle heroin into our country, presents only one question deserving more than summary discussion: Should the district court have dismissed certain counts charged against the defendant in the superseding indictment on the ground that they were added only as a result of “prosecutorial vindictiveness” in r
Charles Ly v. Rodney Schmidt, M.D.public domain
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-06-00435-CV Charles Ly, Appellant v. Rodney Schmidt, M.D., Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-GN-06-001242, HONORABLE STEPHEN YELENOSKY, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION
Charles Ly v. Rodney Schmidt, M.D.public domain
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-06-00435-CV Charles Ly, Appellant v.
Bahri M Nakash v. Nasir Khanpublic domain
Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan September 26, 2011 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice 143102 & (23)