Cases

14 Cal.4th 846 (1997) LORRAINE LODER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF GLENDALE et al., Defendants and Appellants. Docket No. S043548. Supreme Court of California. January 6, 1997. *851 COUNSEL Mark Rosenbaum, Paul Hoffman, Gary Williams, Krakow & Kaplan, Marvin E. Krakow, Steven J. Kaplan and Eliza Vorenberg for Pl

Filed 9/26/22; certified for publication 10/18/22 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO MARIA VIGIL, Plaintiff and Appellant, A160897 v. MUIR MEDICAL GROUP IPA, (Contra Costa County INC.,

51 Cal.4th 1052 (2011) 126 Cal. Rptr. 3d 428 253 P.3d 522 ROBERT A. BROWN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STEWART MORTENSEN, Defendant and Respondent. No. S180862. Supreme Court of California. June 16, 2011. *1056 Law Offices of Robert A. Brown, Robert A. Brown; Law Offices of

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge. Plaintiff Deborah Tamburri initiated this lawsuit in state court, asserting claims for, inter alia, violation of California Civil Code § 2923.5, violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), unfair business practices, and wrongful foreclosure. Defendant Suntrust Mortgage

KRUGER, J. **1135 *684 *664 In 2004, California voters passed Proposition 69 (Prop. 69, as ap

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 412 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 413 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE N

Filed 12/3/14 Opinion on remand from Supreme Court CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A125542 v. MARK BUZA, (San Francisco County

Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-12-2005 Gordon v. Lewistown Hospital Precedential or N

OPINION OF THE COURT FISHER, Circuit Judge. This antitrust case arises from professional review actions undertaken by Lew-istown Hospital (the “Hospital”) to stem unprofessional conduct engaged in by Alan D. Gordon, M.D. (“Gordon”) that impacted adversely upon patient welfare. Gordon and two corporations of which he is the sole shareholder, Alan D. Gordo

145 N.J. 313 (1996) 678 A.2d 683 LYN-ANNA PROPERTIES, LTD., ALAN HUSAK AND ALAN KIPNIS, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. HARBORVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORP., DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF, AND KURENS SOUTH INC., PHILIP KURENS AND CLAIRE KURENS, DEFENDANTS AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. ROBERT NOTTE, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argu

881 F.Supp. 703 (1994) UNITED STATES of America v. Anthony G. OLBRES and Shirley A. Olbres. Cr. No. 93-27-1-2-M. United States District Court, D. New Hampshire. September 30, 1994. *704 *705 Steven M. Gordon, Shaheen, Cappiello, Stein & Gordon, Concord, NH, Terry Philip Segal, Boston, MA,

74 Cal.Rptr.2d 843 (1998) 955 P.2d 469 18 Cal.4th 200 Ruth SHULMAN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GROUP W PRODUCTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. S058629. Supreme Court of California. June 1, 1998. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing July 29, 1998.[*]

469 B.R. 92 (2012) In re JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA, a political subdivision of the State of Alabama Debtor. No. 11-05736-TBB. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division. March 4, 2012. *94 Ann E. Acker, Chicago, IL, Laura E. Appleby, New York, NY, Stephen B. Porterfield, Birmingham, AL, James Spiotto, Chicago, IL, fo

MOSK, J. I dissent. Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution declares a right of privacy. Its pronouncement is express. Nothing is left to implication. “All people” have an “inalienable right[]” to “pursu[e] and obtain[]” “privacy.” Before proceeding a sentence further, we must make one point pellucidly clear. This is

81 Cal.Rptr.2d 93 (1999) 19 Cal.4th 952 968 P.2d 993 SANTA MONICA BEACH, LTD., Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Santa Monica Rent Control Board, Real Party in Interest. No. S052824. Supreme Court of California. January 4, 1999. Certiorari Denied May 24, 1999.

30 N.J. Super. 225 (1954) 104 A.2d 81 LEO ERTAG, PLAINTIFF, v. BERNARD S. HAINES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division. Decided March 24, 1954. *226 Mr. Benjamin Shanefield, attorney for plaintiff. Mr. Jack L. Cohen, attorney for defendants. GAULKIN, J.C.C. Plain

ACCEPTED 03-15-00100-CV 6678421 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

422 F.Supp. 879 (1976) UNIVERSITY HILL FOUNDATION, Plaintiff, v. GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., Defendant. No. 71 Civ. 1166. United States District Court, S. D. New York. October 27, 1976. *880 *881 *882 *883 Regan, Goldfarb,

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 505 Suit by Charles A. Shea, administrator of the estate of J.F. Shea, deceased, against Ernest L. Graves, A.T. Allen, receiver of the business and assets of the E.J. Struntz Planing Mill Company, and others. From a decree for plaintiff and defendant Allen, defendants Graves and others appeal. MODIFIED. REHEARI

MORROW, District Judge. These are two suits in equity, instituted by Joseph Simms. The first is brought against Mary O.' *7Stanton, San Francisco News Company, Argonaut Publishing Company, and Frank M. Pixley, and the second against Mary O. Stanton alone. Both cases were, by consent, heard together, and, in the view I take, a decision in one will cover the other. During the a