Cases

122 F.2d 64 (1941) SAUL v. SAUL. No. 7246. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Decided July 21, 1941. *65 Henry I. Quinn, James C. Wilkes, James E. Artis, Frank J. Hogan, and Nelson T. Hartson, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant. Alvin L. Newmyer and David G. Bress, both of Washington, D. C.,

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 21a0026p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 20-3329 ┐ JOSEPH FORRESTER TRUCKING; AMERICAN RESOURCES INSURANCE │ COMPANY,

OPINION WOLFSON, District Judge: This case involves complex retrocessional agreements between Plaintiff Munich Reinsurance America Inc. (“Munich”) and Defendant American National Insurance Company (“ANICO”). Munich filed a Complaint alleging breach of contract for ANICO’s refusal to pay certain claims submitted for payment by Munich under the parties’ agreements, and in response, ANI-CO filed a countercla

SUTTON, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Say you are a social worker. You are monitoring an unhappy family unhappy in its own way. After the parents divorce, they begin behaving badly when it comes to custody over their children. The mother, perhaps unfairly, perhaps not, is the immediate focus of concern. Over several years, she has had a series of encounters with social workers and police officers, each raising co

ACCEPTED 04-15-00534-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 12/18/2015 4:46:17 PM

Per Curiam: This case was referred to Trial Commissioner Saul Richard Gamer with directions to prepare and file his opinion on the issues of plaintiffs’ motion and defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment under the order of reference and Rule 166 (c). The commissioner has done so in an opinion and report filed on May 20, 1971, wherein such facts as are necessary to the opinion are set forth. Defendant filed a request for rev

ACCEPTED 03-15-00348-CV 6616789 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

Plaintiff brought this action upon a judgment alleged to have been rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of $398.24 in the circuit court of Antrim county in the state of Michigan on November 12th, 1934. The defendant answered, admitting the corporate capacity of the plaintiff, and further admitting that the court in which the judgment was obtained was a court of general jurisdiction, but denying all the other material allegations of the complaint. The defend

Thomas Hanrahan died at Rutland on July 17, 1931. He left a will, drawn by a Burlington attorney on May 14, 1931, and executed at Brattleboro a few days later, by which he gave all his property to the proponent, his widow. This will was filed in the probate court within and for the district of Rutland on July 20, 1931, and upon due notice and hearing, was allowed. It was contested by James Hanrahan, a son and only heir of Thomas, who appealed from the decree of the probate court to the county