Cases

Rose, J. Appeal from an order of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), entered January 6, 2010, which denied defendant’s motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46. In 2000, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal, upon the understanding that he would be permitted to replead to a lesser charge if he cooperated wi

Appeal from a *914judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), rendered April 30, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Following his arrest on charges of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substa

OPINION Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice In an opinion dated November 19, 2014, this court reversed the county court’s judgment and rendered judgment reinstating the municipal court’s judgment in favor of appellant. Appellee filed a motion for en banc reconsideration. We withdraw our opinion and judgment of November 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER McLAUGHLIN, District Judge. This is an equitable action to impose a constructive trust, to compel an accounting, and to appoint a receiver, all in connection with the distribution of the estate of *65Leon Wolther, who died intestate on July 13, 1983 in New York City. Defendants have moved to dismiss for failure to join indispens

ORDER PRADO, District Judge. On this date came on to be considered the status of the above-styled and numbered cause. This civil rights action arose out of incidents that occurred in Marion, Texas on July 31, 1985. Plaintiffs Samuel Pfannstiel (“Pfannstiel”), David Vizza, Roy Vizza, and Victor Garza, Jr. (“Garza”) sued Michael Earl (“Earl”), Harvey Faulkner, (“Faulkner”), Waldon Boecke

183 F.Supp.2d 1099 (2002) Samuel T. HAWKINS, individually, David Baird, and State of Indiana, ex rel. Samuel T. Hawkins, Plaintiffs, v. WAYNE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA and its members, each in their individual capacity, Roger W. Bowser, Earl W. Salisbury, Francis L. Maynard, James F. Mann, Marilyn Pfisterer, Dallas R. Richards, and James F. Mann, individually, and Francis L. Maynard, individually, and Marion County Election Board a

MINORA, J., Before the court is defendant’s motion to appeal from discovery order pursuant to Lackawanna County R.C.P. 4000.1. Defendant appeals Special Trial Master (“STM”) Burke’s order denying defendant’s motion for protective order. The appeal of the defendant is granted in part and denied in part. FACTUAL HISTORY This case stems from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on J

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-22-00126-CV ________________ SPRING FULTS, Appellant V. MARION LANE STANDLEY, Appellee ________________________________________

USCA4 Appeal: 20-12 Doc: 68 Filed: 08/16/2022 Pg: 1 of 35 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-12 MARION BOWMAN, JR., Petitioner – Appellant, v. BRYAN P. STIRLING, Commissioner, South Carolina Department o

USCA11 Case: 21-10744 Date Filed: 04/13/2022 Page: 1 of 10 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-10744 ____________________ CINDY THAYER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus RANDY MARION CHEVROLET BUICK CADILLAC, LLC,

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge. Glenda Beasley is a Christian fundamentalist who strongly believes that God is the most important thing in her life. She sued her employer, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Marion, under Title VII for religious discrimination, claiming that Blue Cross told her to make her job the number one priority in her life and allowed fellow employees to harass her for her r

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered in behalf of the United States in a wrongful death suit brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-2680 (1982). Cole v. United States, 651 F.Supp. 221 (N.D.Fla.1986). We affirm. I. A.

OPINION OF THE COURT ALDISERT, Circuit Judge. The major question for decision in this appeal by an unsuccessful plaintiff in a gender discrimination case is whether, based on the testimony admitted into evidence, the district court erred in concluding that there was no violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq., when Arlene Pfeiffer was dismissed as a me

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 599 U. S. Part 1 Pages 166–235 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 8, 2023 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requ

400 F.Supp.2d 134 (2005) Besseye NEAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DIRECTOR, D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 93-2420 (RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. November 22, 2005. *135 Ted Justice Williams, Avis E. Buchanan, DC, Public Defender Service, Jeffrey Fred Liss, Mary Elizab

EBEL, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Marion Chipman appeals the district court’s order affirming the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, partially denying plaintiffs claims for Supplementary Medical Insurance Benefits under Part B of the Medicare statute, Title XVIII of the Social Security Act. Our jurisdiction over this appeal arises from 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 28 U

FILED Jan 31 2024, 8:30 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Dec 31 2018, 9:31 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing

OPINION VAIDIK, Chief Judge. Case Summary Indiana Trial Rule 75(A) allows a case to be filed in any county in Indiana. In this case, Catherine Kroezek, a Lake County dentist, filed suit against William W. Bel-cher in Lake County under Trial Rule 75(A)(2). Belcher later filed a motion to transfer venue, and a dispute arose over whethe

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 24 2020, 9:19 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indian