Cases

MEMORANDUMN ** Maurice Mack, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm. The

MEMORANDUMN ** Maurice Mack, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm. The

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (April A. Newbauer, J.), rendered March 13, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of forgery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed. After considering the factors set forth in People v Taranovich (37 NY2d 442, 445 [1975]), we conclude that

MEMORANDUM JAMES K. BREDAR, District Judge. O. John Benisek, Stephen M. Shapiro, and Maria B. Pycha (collectively “Plaintiffs”) brought this suit against Bobbie S. Mack, Chair of the Maryland State Board of Elections, and Linda H. Lamone, State Administrator of the Maryland State Board of Elections, (collectively “Defendants”), in their official capacities, alleging that the 2011 congressional di

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: O. John Benisek, Stephen Shapiro, and Maria Pycha appeal the district court’s *141order dismissing a civil complaint challenging, on several grounds, Maryland’s congressional districting plan enacted by the sta

OPINION PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge. This employment discrimination matter came before the Court on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In a previously issued Order, the Court granted the defendant’s motion. See Order (Sept. 28, 2012). This Opinion provides the reasoning behind that decision.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ___________________________________ ) WILLIAM A. MACK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Consolidated Civil Action Nos. ) 06-1144 and 09

Mack v Mack (2022 NY Slip Op 04222) Mack v Mack 2022 NY Slip Op 04222 Decided on June 30, 2022 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

D. Mack's Motion to Transfer Mack argues that transfer to the Northern District of Ohio is compelled because Ohio Rev. Code § 4113.62(D)(1) and Ind. Code § 32-28-3-17 void the contracts' choice of law and forum selection clauses. According to Mack, I should declare these provisions void because "[u]

253 F.Supp.2d 552 (2003) Kimberly MACK, Plaintiffs, v. The TOWN OF WALLKILL, James Coscette, individually and in his capacity as Police Chief of the Town of Wallkill, Police Officer Steven Kuhn, Sr., Individually and in his capacity as a Police Officer for the Town of Wallkill and Police Officer Adam Bruce, Individually and in his capacity as a Police Officer for the Town of Wallkill, Defendants. No. 00 CIV. 8965(CM).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GERTNER, District Judge. Plaintiff Katrina Mack (“Plaintiff” or “Mack”) and four potential intervenors (“Plaintiffs”) seek to represent a class of women subjected to strip-searches and visual body cavity inspections during pre-arraignment detention at the Suffolk County jail. The searches were not episodic. They were conducted pursuant to an official policy of the Suffolk County Sheriff’

817 A.2d 571 (2003) Edward MACK v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (City of Philadelphia). Appeal of City of Philadelphia. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Argued November 5, 2002. Decided February 24, 2003. As Amended February 25, 2003. Leah Cilo, Philadelphia, for appellant. Michael I. McDermott, Philadelphia, for appellee. Before FR

7ermont Superior Court Filed 03/07/25 Rutland Unit VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION Rutland Unit

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC2022-1286 ____________ JOHNNY MACK SKETO CALHOUN, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. July 6, 2023 PER CURIAM. Johnny Mack Sketo Calhoun appeals the circuit court’s denials of his successive

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered on or about December 10, 2009, and said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties; and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is *702hereby aff

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-13468 ERIC MACK vs. DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE BRISTOL DISTRICT. Suffolk.

*664The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence and statements. There is no basis for disturbing any of the court’s credibility determinations (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The record supports the court’s finding that an officer saw defendant picking up a pistol and placing it in his jacket pocket. This provided the offi

Mack v City of New York (2018 NY Slip Op 06627) Mack v City of New York 2018 NY Slip Op 06627 Decided on October 4, 2018 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered June 30, 2009, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed. The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant youthful offender treatment (see People v Drayton, 39 NY2d 580 [1976]), given the seriousness of the crime, defendant’s prior record and

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC18-340 ____________ JOHNNY MACK SKETO CALHOUN, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ____________ No. SC18-1174