Cases

PUBLISHED OPINION OF THE COURT Mitchell, Presiding Judge: This interlocutory appeal arises from the military judge’s decision “that excludes evidence that is substantial proof of a material fact in the proceeding.” 10 U.S.C. § 950d(a)(2). The procedural history of this case is described in United States v. Al-Nashiri, No. 14-001, slip op. at *2 (USCMCR June 9, 2016). The military judge exclude

Berdon, J. The dispositive issue raised by this appeal1 is whether a municipality is authorized pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 8-lc2 to establish and collect reasonable fees to cover the costs of engineering review of construction plans and inspection of subdivision improvements during construction in connection with an application for a subdivision. We concl

Freedman, J. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeals from a decision by the Somers planning commission denying his application for subdivision approval with respect to a parcel of land in Somers and a decision by the Somers conservation commission denying his application for a wetlands permit with respect to that land. The issues on appeal to this court in both cases are (1) whether the t

PUBLISHED OPINION OF THE COURT SILLIMAN, Deputy Chief Judge: On August 11, 2014, the military' commission judge (military judge) dismissed Specification 2 of Charge IV (Terrorism), Charge VII (Attacking Civilians), Charge VIII (Attacking Civilian Objects), and Charge IX (Hijacking or Hazarding a Vessel or Aircraft) (“the charges”) after appel-lee moved to dismiss the charges for lack of jurisdiction. App.

Kupferman, J. (concurring). The arbitrator broke the tie. The provision for such a determination is a salutary one in order to avoid a stalemate. It is difficult to understand the position of the City of New York with respect thereto when under the provisions of the Administrative Code whatever action is taken by the board of trustees (including a situation where an arbitrator settles a dispute) is subject to the prior approva

31 Cal.Rptr.3d 714 (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 253 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Eric Douglas CHANEY, Defendant and Appellant. No. A106034. Court of Appeal, First District, Division One. July 21, 2005. *715 Matthew Zwerling, Executive Director, L. Richard Braucher, Staff Attorney, First District Appe

BORDEN, J. The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the denial by the defendant, the commission on hospitals and health care, of the request by the plaintiff, PARCC, Inc., for reauthorization of the construction of a planned ten bed expansion of its nursing home facility (facility), was a final decision of an administrative agency in a contested case under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), General Statutes §

INTERNATIONAL INVESTORS v. TOWN PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF FAIRFIELD ET AL. (SC 20579) Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant plan and zoning commission, which granted extensions of the approvals of a special permit and coastal site plan review to t

Peters, C. J. The sole issue in this tax appeal is whether payments that insurance companies doing business in New Jersey are required to make to the New Jersey Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund (UCJF) constitute “other obligations” for purposes of the application of this state’s retaliatory tax under General Statutes (Rev. to 1985) § 12-211.1 The plaintiff,

Opinion KATZ, J. This appeal raises several issues of first impression regarding the authority of the state board of labor relations to interpret and enforce grievance settlements pursuant to the Municipal Employees Relations Act (act). The defendants, the Hartford Municipal *253Employees Association (union) and the state board of labor rela

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. Investors in a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Nicholas Cosmo (“Cosmo”) through Agape Merchant Advance LLC, Agape World Bridges, LLC, and Agape World Inc. (collectively “Agape”) commenced these two cases, In re Agape Litigation, 09-CV-1606 (the “Class Action Plaintiffs”) and Clarke v. Cosmo, 09-CV-1782 (the “Clarke Plaintiff

773 F.Supp.2d 298 (2011) In re AGAPE LITIGATION. This Document Relates to All Actions. Adrianne Clarke, TL Horizons LLC, Maximilian Enterprises LLC and Equity Trust Company Custodian fbo Adrianne Clark IRA, Plaintiffs, v. Nicholas Cosmo, Agape World Inc., Agape Merchant Advance LLC, Agape World LLC, Anthony Massaro, David Petry, Hugo Leon Arias, Sebastian Tauz, Marty Hartmann, Sr., Marty Hartmann, Jr., Elizabeth (last name unknown), Laurie Sa

Borden, J. The principal issues in these appeals and cross appeal are whether the trial court properly determined that: (1) the New Milford zoning commission (commission) had not waived its opportunity to restrict the height of a landfill in New Milford (landfill) owned and operated by Waste Management of Connecticut, Inc. (Waste Management), by the commission’s failure *225

WINTER, Circuit Judge: Mike’s Grocery Store in Wilmington, North Carolina, was firebombed and burned on February 6, 1971, and the perpetrators of that crime, using various weapons, fired upon the firemen and policemen attempting to extinguish the fire. Benjamin F. Chavis and his nine co-petitioners were variously convicted in the Superior Court of Pender County, North Carolina, of felonious burning of that property and consp

319 F.Supp. 1247 (1970) TROPIC FILM CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, Paramount Film Distributing Corporation, and Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., Defendants. No. 70 Civ. 926. United States District Court, S. D. New York. July 31, 1970. Dickstein, Shapiro & Galligan, New York City, for plaintiff; David I. Shapiro, New York C

MESKILL, Circuit Judge: New York’s Unemployment Insurance Law permits employees who are involved in a “strike, lockout, or other industrial controversy” to collect unemployment compensation after a waiting period of eight weeks. N.Y.Lab.Law §§ 590.9, 592.1 (McKinney 1977). The district court held this statute invalid under the supremacy clause, U.S.Const. art. VI, cl. 2, finding that it alters the balance in the collective bar

This Opinion is a Precedent of the TTAB Mailed: March 18, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board _____ In re Mr. Recipe, LLC

566 F.2d 388 96 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2921, 82 Lab.Cas. P 10,206 NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, Western Electric Company,American Telephone & Telegraph Company, Long LinesDepartment, and Empire City SubwayCompany (Limited), Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Louis L. Levine,Industrial Commissioner of the New York State Department ofLabor, New York State Department of Taxati

This Opinion is a Precedent of the TTAB Mailed: March 18, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board _____ In re Mr. Recipe, LLC

637 F.2d 213 7 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1243 Benjamin F. CHAVIS; Connie Tindall; Willie Earl Vereen;Marvin Patrick; Anne Sheppard Turner; Joe Wright;Wayne Moore; Reginald Epps; JerryJacobs; and James McKoy, Appellants,v.STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; Frances N. Futch; Kitchen S.Powers; Sam P. Garrison; Louis Powell, Superintendent of N.C. Correction Center for Women; Amos E. Reed; and J. C.Harris, S