Cases

Wright, J. The sole issue in this case is whether a court may hold a parent in contempt and impose a jail sentence for the parent’s failure to comply with an order to pay child support when the child who is the subject of the order is emancipated. We hold that a court may use its contempt powers in such a manner even if the child is emancipated. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals. Appel

631 F.Supp. 1532 (1986) Karen A. PETRY, Administratrix of the Estate of Robert E. Petry, deceased, Plaintiff, v. DELMARVA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 85-134 MMS. United States District Court, D. Delaware. April 11, 1986. *1533 Richard A. Zappa, and William D. Bubb, of Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, W

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED May 20, 2024 released at 3:00 p.m. Lewis Springer and

Cramer et al., Appellees, v. Petrie, Appellant. [Cite as Cramer v. Petrie (1994), Ohio St.3d .] Domestic relations -- Child support -- Order to pay child support may be enforced by means of imprisonment through contempt proceedings even after the child who is the subject of the order is emancipated. An obligation to pay child support is not a "debt" within the meaning of that term in Section 15, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. Because this obligation does not

696 F.Supp. 411 (1986) Bennett F. OLSSON and Janet Lou Olsson v. A.O. SMITH HARVESTORE PRODUCTS, INC. No. IP 82-1888-C. United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division. November 26, 1986. *412 Vernon J. Petri and Michael L. Hanley, Indianapolis, Ind., John R. Elrod, Elrod & Lee, Siloam Springs, Ark., and Wil

In the Missouri Court of Appeals\ Western District IN THE INTEREST OF: A.S.B., ) ) Appellant, ) WD84244 ) v. ) OPINION FILED: JUNE 28, 2022 ) JUVENILE OFFICER,

656 F.Supp. 644 (1987) Bennett F. OLSSON and Janet Lou Olsson v. A.O. SMITH HARVESTORE PRODUCTS, INC. No. IP 82-1888-C. United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division. March 27, 1987. *645 Vernon J. Petri, Michael L. Hanley, Vernon J. Petri, P.C., Indianapolis, Ind., John R. Elrod, Elrod & Lee, Siloam Sprin

846 F.Supp. 1459 (1994) Bryce AMBRAZIUNAS, Cary Ambraziunas, Marsha Ambraziunas, Ray Ambraziunas, Jane Ashley, Rick Back, M. Lawrence Berk, Trustee of the M. Lawrence Berk Trust, Lois Berk, Simone Berk, Irma Beezley, Charles A. Bonati, Jr., Diana M. Bonati, C & D Enterprises, Charles and Kathleen Bonati, Diane Bossiere, Sarah Bozich, James Cambridge, Connie Carlstrom, Ethan Cantor, Barbara Carnahan, Barbara Colard, William C. Daney, Jr., Steve D'Arcy

ORDER ON DEFENDANT PATHEON’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION Jonathan Goodman, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This litigation arose out of a Collaboration Agreement between two companies involved in the pharmaceutical business, Plaintiff Procaps S.A. (“Procaps”) and Defendant Patheon Inc. (“Patheon”). Procaps and Patheon have spent much of the past three years involved in an expensive, bitter, time-consuming, and

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GERALD L. RUSHFELT, United States Magistrate. Under consideration are Defendants’ Motion to Compel Answers to Their Interrogatories Regarding Existence of Facially Neutral Personnel Policies, Practices and Procedures Alleged to Have a Disparate Impact on Females and Claims of Intentional Sex Discrimination—First Set (doc. 739) and Plaintiff and Plaintiff-intervenor’s Motion to Compel

*442MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GERALD L. RUSHFELT, United States Magistrate. This matter is before the court on Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Motion to Compel (doc. 748) and Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff-intervenor to Respond to Certain of Defendants’ “Interrogatories Regarding Communications With Potential Claimants—First Set” (doc. 779).</

GOULD, Circuit Judge: This case concerns a monetary dispute over the award of incentive fees, or commissions, pursuant to a representation agreement. Appellees DP Aviation, M.C. Pietromonaco, Inc., and Micom, Inc. (collectively, “DPA”) alleged that Appellant Smiths Industries Aerospace and Defense Systems, Ltd. (“SIADS”) breached its representation agreement with DPA by refusing to pay incentive fees on products supplied by S

450 F.Supp.2d 288 (2006) D Scott CARRUTHERS, Springhawk LLC, Summerhawk LLC, Plaintiffs, v. David FLAUM, Flaum Management Company, Inc., 3D Associates LLC, A.P. Equity, Inc., Ancestral Reclamation LLC, Alan H. Young, Individually and d/b/a Lindenbaum & Young, Lindenbaum & Young, Charles Petri, Gene Barbanti, Individually and d/b/a the Barbanti Group Real Estate and James Simermeyer, Defendants. No. 03 Civ. 7768.

720 N.W.2d 134 (2006) 2006 WI App 142 Bruce LARSON and Peer Larson, his minor son,[†] Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Elizabeth BURMASTER, Superintendent, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Karen Petric, Superintendent, Whitnall School District, Joel Eul, Principal, Whitnall High School, Nancy Sarnow, Chairman, Math Department, Whitnall High School and Aaron Bieniek, Math Instructor, Whitnall High School, Def

289 S.W.3d 256 (2009) In the Matter of Mary Lou SCHIEBER, Respondent, Karen Hebert, Appellant, v. Michael SCHIEBER, Respondent. No. WD 69913. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. June 23, 2009. *257 Steven M. Petry, for Appellant. Scott W. Ross, for Respondent. John W. Baker, Jr., for Respondent.

19 Wn. App. 409 (1978) 576 P.2d 908 JAMES A. HENRY, Appellant, v. KAREN J. RUSSELL, ET AL, Respondents. No. 2372-2. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two. March 1, 1978. Malcolm L. Edwards, Charles K. Wiggins, and Edwards, Wetherall & Barbieri, for appellant. Faith Enyeart, for respondents. SO

388 F.Supp.2d 360 (2005) D. Scott CARRUTHERS, Springhawk, LLC, and Summerhawk, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. David FLAUM, Flaum Management Company, Inc., 3D Associates, LLC, ABC Pacific Realty, LLC, A.P. Equity, Inc., Ancestral Reclamation, LLC, Alan H. Young, individually, d/b/a Lindenbaum and Young, Lindenbaum and Young, Charles Petri, Gene Barbanti, individually and d/b/a the Barbanti Group Real Estate, James F. Simermeyer, Harry B. Wallace and Simermey

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan December 16, 2014 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GERALD L. RUSHFELT, United States Magistrate. Under consideration are plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor’s Motion for Leave to Communicate with Potential Claimants (doc. 636) and defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (doc. 657). Plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor (hereinafter plaintiffs) seek leave to communicate with all current employees, former employees, and

496 F.3d 291 (2007) Howard GRADEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant v. CONEXANT SYSTEMS INC.; Dwight W. Decker; Armando Geday; Robert McMullan; Michael Vishny; Plan Committee Members; John Does 1-10 fictitious names; J. Scott Blouin; Balakrishnan S. Iyer; Dennis E. O'Reilly; Kerry K. Petry; Bradley W. Yates. No. 06-2337. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circui