Cases

Justice TODD, concurring. I agree with the majority that the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code does not mandate application of the rule, set forth in Hodgson’s Estate,1 that a party offering a lost will for probate must demonstrate its contents by the testimony of two witnesses. Yet, I would decline, at this juncture, to overrule Hodgson

The Chancellor: The solicitors for the complainants have argued this case on the assumption that the facts show a case of the owner of a vacant plot of land laying the same out in twelve building lots, each abutting upon a fourteen foot, seven inch alley carved out of the rear of the plot, erecting on the plot a solid row of twelve adjoining houses with basement garages, conveying the houses and lots to several grantees together

Spruancr, J:— This is a rule to show cause why the sheriff’s return to Fi. Fa. No. io to the September term, 1897, should not be quashed and stricken from the record. The return is, Nulla bona and afterwards levied on lands and tenements as per description annexed. The inquisition was held on the 19th of October following, under a rule issued after the return of the Fi. Fa. The sworn

PER CURIAM. This opinion involves the sanction phase of our appellate review in a disciplinary proceeding regarding the Respondent, K. Kay Shearin. In our initial disposition, we affirmed the Board on Professional Responsibility’s judgment that the alleged ethical violations had been established by clear and convincing *785evidence.1 Befor

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions by published opinion. Judge WILKINSON wrote the opinion, in which Judge AGEE and Judge HARRIS joined. WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: The Professional Massage Training Center (PMTC) brought this suit against the Accreditation Alliance of Career Schools and Colleges (ACCSC or the Commission) for vi

Easterly, Associate Judge, concurring: I join the opinion of the court adopting Federal Rule of Evidence 702 as the rule for the admission of expert testimony in criminal and civil cases. With this decision, trial courts will be called upon to scrutinize an array of forensic expert testimony under new, more scientifically demanding standards; As the opinion of the court states, “[tjhere is no ‘grandfatherin

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE OLENA SMITH, § § No. 14, 2024 Plaintiff Below, Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § WILLIAM CAREY, § C.A. No. N23C-07-035

884 A.2d 513 (2005) INTERIM HEALTHCARE, INC, Catamaran Acquisition Corp. and Cornerstone Equity Investors, IV, L.P., Plaintiffs, v. SPHERION CORPORATION, Defendant. C.A. No. 00C-09-180-JRS. Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County. Submitted: July 20, 2004. Decided: February 4, 2005. Sean J. Bellew, Cozen O'Connor, Wilmington, DE; Robert W. Hay

Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 20-0639 ══════════ Nettye Engler Energy, LP, Petitioner, v. BlueStone Natural Resources II, LLC, Respondent ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the

73 P.3d 911 (2003) 335 Or. 555 STATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review, v. Jay Dee MARRINGTON, Petitioner on Review. (CC 99CR0566; CA A108321; SC S49100). Supreme Court of Oregon. Argued and Submitted May 5, 2003. Decided July 31, 2003. *912 Anne Fujita Munsey, Deputy Public Defender, Salem,

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2017COA94 Court of Appeals No. 16CA0259 Jefferson County District Court No. 88DR2670 Honorable Christine M. Phillips, Judge In re the Marriage of Josephine Marie Kann, n/k/a Josephine Marie Voshell, Appellee, and Bruce Allen Kann, Appellant. ORDER AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS Division III Opi

ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING CASE TO SECRETARY MELTON, District Judge. This cause is before the Court pursuant to plaintiff’s action seeking review of the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This matter was considered by the United States Magistrate, pursuant to standing order concerning assignment of social security cases.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY NORTHPOINTE HOLDINGS, LLC, ) Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, ) v. ) NATIONWIDE EMERGING ) C.A. No. N09C-11-141 ALR MANAGERS, LLC, ) Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/ ) Third-Party Plaintiff,

The opinion of the court was delivered by Harman, C.: The action in district court was one to quiet title to real estate. The principals in the case are father and son. In trial to the court the plaintiff son and his wife prevailed and the defendant father has appealed. At trial some salient facts were in dispute and others were not fully developed because of loss of recollection of the witne

581 P.2d 310 (1978) Jane ROE et al., Petitioners-Appellees, v. John DOE, Defendant-Appellant. Mary ROE et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. James DOE, Defendant-Appellee. Nos. 6425, 6859. Supreme Court of Hawaii. June 9, 1978. *312 Henry T. Hirai, Honolulu, for defendant-appellant in No. 6425. Claire M. Marumoto,

213 Kan. 61 (1973) 515 P.2d 781 MARY ELLEN KIRKPATRICK and JAYDE SPRECKER, d/b/a KIRKPATRICK & SPRECKER, A Partnership, Appellees, v. SENECA NATIONAL BANK, A National Banking Association, Appellant. No. 46,859 Supreme Court of Kansas. Opinion filed November 3, 1973. Terry G. Paup, of Sargent, Klenda and Paup, of Wichita, argued the

187 A.2d 421 (1963) A. Felix duPONT, Jr., and Henry B. duPont, Partners, T/A Rodney Real Estate Associates, Plaintiffs. v. AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation of the State of Delaware, Bank of Delaware, a corporation of the State of Delaware, as Trustee under the Will of Christopher L. Ward, and Rodman B. Ward, Carole Clay Ward, Esther Ward Kimball, Alison Ward Burdick, Charles P. MacArthur, Jr., Mary MacArthur Bartlett, Mary Govan Bil

Seitz, Chancellor: Plaintiffs are seeking to quiet title to a parcel of real estate at the southwest corner of 12th and Market Streets in Wilmington on which the Elks Club and Rodney Hotel were formerly located. Defendant American Life Insurance Company (“American”) is a prospective purchaser of this parcel from the aforesaid plaintiffs under a written contract dated April 23, 1962. American has refused to consummate the contract

141 Conn. 558 (1954) FREDERICK WAMBECK ET AL. v. JOSEPH LOVETRI Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued June 9, 1954. Decided August 3, 1954. INGLIS, C. J., BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JS. *559 James A. Dougherty and Walter A. Hayes, for the appellants (plaintiffs). William L. Beers, for t

The opinion of the court was delivered by Fatzeb, J.: This was an action to recover the landowners’ royalty from November 1, 1954, to April 30, 1955, under a producing oil and gas lease in the Hugoton Gas Field (field). The principal question presented is the amount to be paid to plaintiff lessors as royalty under the terms of the leases in effect between them and the defendant Hugoton Production Company (Hugot