Cases

Matter of Mazzullo v Barnett (2022 NY Slip Op 04458) Matter of Mazzullo v Barnett 2022 NY Slip Op 04458 Decided on July 8, 2022 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law

263 P.3d 959 (2011) 2011 OK CR 28 Eric Jose BARNETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. No. F-2009-698. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. November 1, 2011. *960 James Dennis, Sapulpa, OK, attorney for defendant at trial. O.R. Barris, III, Asst. District Attorney, Okmulgee, OK, attor

357 B.R. 785 (2006) In re ACRO BUSINESS FINANCE CORP., Debtor. ACRO Business Finance Corp., Plaintiff, v. M & I Marshall and Ilsley Bank, Stearns Bank, North Star Bank, Landmark Community Bank, Excel Bank, Donald E. Glesmann, People's Bank of Commerce, Virgil Eihusen, John Hanson, and ArrowHead Consulting Group, Ltd., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 06-41364. Adversary No. 06-04432. United States Ba

LEVAL, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Joseph M. Pallozzi and Lori R. Pallozzi appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Scullin, J.) dismissing their complaint against Defendant Allstate Life Insurance Company (“Allstate”) under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Ins. Co.,

PAUL LUCKY III * NO. 2022-CA-0571 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL TIERRA M. SINGLETON * LUCKY FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* APPEAL FROM

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY L. LIGHTSEY, Appellant, v. ANGELICA M. DAVIS, Appellee. No. 4D18-2848 [March 6, 2019] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,

May, Judge. [1] Kailee M. Smith 1 and Jeffrey S. McQuary (collectively, "Appellants") appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State on an indemnification claim Kailee and McQuary filed against the State ("Indemnification Claim"). Appellants present three issues for our consideration, which we restate

[Cite as In re A.W.E-M., 2023-Ohio-2896.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ATHENS COUNTY In Re: A.W.E-M. : Duane M. McDiarmid, : Case No. 22CA9 Plaintiff-Appellant, : v. : DECISION AND JU

*414 GROSS, J. This case is a tug of war between Broward County’s property appraiser, a constitutional officer, and the Board of County Commissioners. The Board wants to have as much control over its budget as possible; the property appraiser believes that the Board’s discretion over her

OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Shadeed Barnett, appeals his conviction for felonious assault with a firearm specification following a jury trial in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas. {¶ 2} Appellant was indicted in November 2007 on one count of felonious *Page 2 assault with two firearm specifications (brandishing a firearm and possessin

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-23-00073-CV IN RE SĀFEN MEDICAL PRODUCTS, LLC, Elizabeth Friedman, Individually, Elizabeth Friedman as Sole Manager of Sāfen Medical Products, LLC and David J. Friedman, M.D. Original Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting:

615 F.Supp.2d 963 (2009) ELLIOT & CALLAN, INC., a Minnesota corporation, Plaintiff, v. Luther Allan CROFTON, Defendant. No. 07-CV-3391(PJS/JJG). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. March 30, 2009. *965 Cass S. Weil, Kristin B. Heebner, Lorie A. Klein, and Mathew M. Meyer, Moss & Barnett, PA, for plaintiff.

RENDERED: NOVEMBER 15, 2024; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2023-CA-0809-MR BAPTIST HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP, INC.; AND BAPTIST HEALTH MADISONVILLE, INC. APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE SUSAN SCHULTZ GIBSON, JUDGE ACTION NO

OPINION DIETZEN, Justice. This case requires us to determine whether a person who is physically able to move without assistance, but who lacks the ability to direct his movement to a specific location, has a dependency in “mobility” under Minn.Stat. § 256B.0659 (2012). Appellant A.A.A. challenges the decision of the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (“DHS”), who found that appella

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DONOVAN W. FRANK, District Judge. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 5, 8, 10, 28) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 13). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and denies as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

BROWNING, J. E.M.A. (Appellant), who is the 30-year-old father of two minor children, appeals a final order finding the children dependent, withholding an adjudication of dependency, and ordering the children (who formerly lived with Appellant) to remain in the temporary physical care and custody of their paternal grandparents and maternal grandmother pending further order of the court.1 We have ju

Opinion of the Court by Justice VENTERS. We granted discretionary review in this matter to examine when it is proper for the trial court to give a missing evidence instruction, and whether it was permissible here to hold an employer liable for punitive damages based upon the gross negligence of an employee. University Medical Center, Inc. d/b/a University of Louisville Hospital (“University Hospital”), appeal

607 N.W.2d 8 (2000) 2000 SD 27 Ruby PETERSON, Individually and as the Special Administratrix of the Estate of Edward L. Peterson, Deceased, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Robert C. HOHM, M.D.; Paul Hohm, M.D.; Tschetter & Hohm Clinic, P.C.; and Knute Landreth, M.D., Defendants and Appellees. No. 20975. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs

18 Kan. App. 2d 479 (1993) 856 P.2d 183 KENNETH and JUANITA FINLAY, Appellants, v. ROBERT FINLAY, Appellee. No. 68,914 Court of Appeals of Kansas. Opinion filed June 25, 1993. Keith Renner, Lee R. Barnett, and Lori L. Yockers, of Law Office of Lee R. Barnett, of Wakarusa, for appellants. Marian M. Burns and Patr

Slip Op. 20- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE TR INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY, Plaintiff, Before: Mark A. Barnett, Judge v. Court No. 19-00022 UNITED STATES, ET AL., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER [Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter juris