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.
13 opinions for “Lisa A Ruggieri”
Commonwealth v. Deepublic domain
Following a reported question by a District Court judge, we transferred this case from the Appeals Court on our own motion to decide whether, in view of the enactment of G. L. c. 94C, § 32L, inserted by St. 2008, c. 387, § 2, which decriminalized possession of one ounce or less of marijuana, a defendant may be criminally charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32C (a), where the amount of mari
Commonwealth v. Keefnerpublic domain
Ireland, C.J. A single justice of this court granted the Commonwealth leave to file an interlocutory appeal from a District Court judge’s order in the Appeals Court, see Mass. R. Crim. P. 15 (a) (2), as appearing in 422 Mass. 1501 (1996). We transferred this case here on our motion to consider whether, in view of the enactment of G. L. c. 94C, § 32L, inserted by St. 2008, c. 387, § 2, which decriminalized possession of one ounce
Bower v. Bournay-Bowerpublic domain
Spina, J. This case raises an issue of first impression in the Commonwealth regarding the authority of a judge in a divorce or custody proceeding in the Probate and Family Court to appoint, over the objection of one of the parties, a “parent coordinator” 1 to assist parents in r
Matter of Driscoll v. Mackpublic domain
Matter of Driscoll v Mack (2020 NY Slip Op 02559) Matter of Driscoll v Mack 2020 NY Slip Op 02559 Decided on May 1, 2020 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to
Katz v. Spiniello Companiespublic domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CASPER, J. I. Introduction This case arises out of a May 31, 2014 airplane crash that occurred in Bedford, Massachusetts during the takeoff rotation of a Gulfstream G-IV aircraft, killing all passengers onboard. Plaintiffs Drew Katz and Melissa Silver (“Plaintiffs”), individually and as the co-personal representatives of the estate of Lewis A. Katz, a passenger on the
Sargent Coastline Trust v. Sargentpublic domain
DECISION Before this Court are Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider ("Motion") the July 31, 2009 Decision of the above-referenced matter and Defendant's Motion to Lift Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"). After issuing its July 31, 2009 opinion, but before entry of a final order, this Court determined that it would consider revisiting the Decision if so sought by the parties. After reconsideration, this Court holds that the
DATE: 03/16/2016 PENNSYLVANIA CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PAGE: 1 TIME: 08:44:17 NON-COMPLIANT LAWYERS USER ID: jilgenfr ACTIVE REPORT: ctrk_crt SORT BY : COUNTY CODE, LAWYER LAST NAME CRITERIA: COMPLIANCE YEAR END DATE = 08312015 GROUP 2 _____________________________________________________________________________
Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio, Inc.public domain
48 F.Supp.2d 670 (1999) Gerardo CASTILLO, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. CASE FARMS OF OHIO, Inc., et al., Defendants. No. DR 97-CA-89. United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Del Rio Division. March 23, 1999. *671 *672 *673 Lisa J. D'Souza, Selena N. Solis, Tex
DiBattista v. Lincolnpublic domain
286 A.2d 591 (1972) Michael DiBATTISTA et ux. v. Marie T. LINCOLN. No. 1405-Appeal. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. January 24, 1972. *592 Carl B. Lisa, Almonte, Lisa & Pisano, Providence, for plaintiffs. Francis V. Reynolds, Bernard W. Boyer, Providence, for defendant. OPINION PER CURIAM.
Sclafani v. PC Richard & Sonpublic domain
668 F.Supp.2d 423 (2009) Lisa SCLAFANI, Plaintiff, v. PC RICHARD & SON, Li Corp., Joe Van Glahn (sued in his individual capacity pursuant to N.Y. Executive Law § 290 et seq.), Frank Riccardo (sued in his individual capacity pursuant to N.Y. Executive Law § 290 et seq.), Bonni Richard (sued in her individual capacity pursuant to N.Y. Executive Law § 290 et seq.), Steve Huff (sued in his individual capacity pursuant to N.Y. Executive Law § 290
McCARTHY v. DUN & BRADSTREET CORPORATIONpublic domain
482 F.3d 184 Mary McCARTHY, Clayton Borowski, on behalf of others similarly situated, and individually, Gail Adams, Donald Bakert, RoseMarie Black, Albin Blom, Mike Blount, William Brady, Donna Cochran, Steve Crowther, Michael Coughlin, Delia Coy, Paul Crowe, Cary Elbaum, Lisa Farnsworth, Jack Finley, James Gabrys, Gregory Gopodarek, Laura Gue, James Hadley, Gerald Hillard, Carl Langbein, Thomas Majka, Frederick Markt, Doris Megesi, Steve Miholics,
Hahn v. Walshpublic domain
OPINION MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY, District Judge. This case is before the court for ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment (# 124) filed by Defendants City of Urbana, Sylvia Morgan, Matthew Bain and Angela Menocci (Urbana Defendants), the Motion for Summary Judgment (# 130) filed by Defendants Daniel Walsh (Walsh) and County of Champaign, Illinois (Champaign County), the Motion for Summary Judgme
McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp.public domain
STANCEU, Judge. Plaintiffs-appellants are former employees of the Dun & Bradstreet Corporation (“Dun & Bradstreet”) who were terminated from the company when Dun & Bradstreet sold its “Receivables Management Services” operations, conducted in the United States, Canada, and Hong Kong, on April 30, 2001. Upon the sale, plaintiffs-appellants became employees of a new corp