Cases

OPINION Chief Justice Suttell, for the Court. Mark Quillen (plaintiff) appeals from a Superior Court judgment in favor of Mary Macera (defendant), the beneficiary of an Arnica Insurance Company (Arnica) annuity policy created by Domenic Zubiago (Mr. Zubiago), the plaintiffs great-uncle and the defendant’s brother. This cas

OPINION OF THE COURT AMBRO, Circuit Judge. William Quillen, while an inmate in the Pennsylvania prison system, mailed to the state parole board a threatening letter that contained a powdery substance. Suspecting it was anthrax (it was not), the authorities’ response included a cleanup by a hazardous materials (“hazmat”) team. After Quillen pleaded guilty

01/30/2020 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 7, 2019 CHRISTOPHER MAURICE KIBBE V. MARY CAROLYN KIBBE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County No. 30512 James E. Lauderback, Judge

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 17, 2011 Session MARY ANNE OSESEK v. MICHAEL W. OSESEK Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sumner County No. 2006D128 Tom E. Gray, Chancellor No. M2011-00984-COA-R3-CV - Filed March 6, 2012 Husband filed a petition to terminate or modify the amount of alimony in futuro he was obligated t

312 S.E.2d 278 (1984) Ruth QUILLEN, et al. v. Edward Lunn TULL, et al. Record No. 810725. Supreme Court of Virginia. January 20, 1984. Glen A. Tyler, Parksley (W. Revell Lewis, III, Tyler & Lewis, Parksley, on briefs), for appellants. R. Norris Bloxom, Accomac, for appellees. Before CARRICO, C.J., and COCHRAN, POFF, COMPTON, STEPHENSON, RUSSELL and

OPINION COLE, Circuit Judge. On February 22, 2001, Defendant-Appellant Marlon Placide was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine. On March 21, 2001, Placide and Defendant-Appellant Simone Lowe were the subject of an additional indictment charging them with: (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine; (2) conspiring

Colorado Supreme Court Opinions || April 20, 2015 Colorado Supreme Court -- April 20, 2015 2015 CO 26. No. 13SC576. Antero Resources Corp. v. Strudley. The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado 2 East 14th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203 2015 CO 26 Supreme Court Case

On Application for Rehearing The opinion of June 2, 2000, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted therefor. The plaintiffs in the Allen case are attorneys at law whose principal offices are located in Walker County. The *Page 810 plaintiffs in the Blackston case are accountants, physicians, chiropractors, a dentist, veterinarians, and a group including optometrists and opticians; all have their p

EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge Plaintiffs bring this putative class action alleging that they have been discriminatorily denied benefits under their employer-offered prescription drug benefit plans. The complaint names two sets of defendants: CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Caremark, LLC., and Caremark California Specialty Pharmacy, LLC (collectively "CVS"), and Amtrak, Lowe's Companies, and Time Warner, Inc. (collectively "Employ

318 S.E.2d 377 (1984) Mary Lee VICARS, et al. v. Lois Frances MULLINS, et al. Record No. 812003. Supreme Court of Virginia. June 15, 1984. H. Eugene Cochran, Lebanon, for appellants. Stephen M. Quillen; George A. Pruner, Lebanon, for appellees. Present: All the Justices. COCHRAN, Justice. The question for determination in this appeal is w

The opinion of the court was delivered by ROSEN, J.: Dustin J. Merryfield and Richard A. Quillen are residents of the Lamed State Hospital and are involuntary participants *398 in the Kansas Sexual Predator Treatment Program there. They filed petitions challenging the Program’s

OPINION NAJAM, Judge. STATEMENT OF THE CASE E.B. ("Mother") appeals the trial court's order in which the court determined that Mother's two minor children, Des.B. and Dem.B. ("the children"), are children in need of services ("CHINS") 1 Mother raises three issues for our rev

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Dec 28 2015, 8:21 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE John T. Wilson Gregory F. Zoeller Anderson, Indiana

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 28 2019, 10:19 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals

216 Md. 396 (1958) 140 A.2d 517 QUILLEN ET AL. v. KELLEY ET AL., EXECUTORS [No. 221, September Term, 1957.] Court of Appeals of Maryland. Decided April 25, 1958. The cause was argued before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ., and GRAY, JR., Chief Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, specially assigned. Howard DeMuth, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued March 24, 2017 Decided April 28, 2017 No. 17-5024 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., APPELLEES v. ANTHEM, INC., APPELLANT CIGNA CORPORATION, APPELLANT Consolidated with 17-5028 Appeals f

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 10 2013, 5:35 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: JOANN M. PRICE ROBERT J. HENKE Merrillville,

[Cite as State v. Cox, 2022-Ohio-4623.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellant : Appellate Case No. 29522 : v. : Tri

MEMORANDUM OPINION ELIZABETH K. DILLON, District Judge. Plaintiff Dora Caudle, proceeding pro se, has asserted five causes of action against defendants, all of which relate to defendants’ decision to honor an IRS tax levy and their sending her monthly retirement allowance to the IRS. Caudle claims that a portion of her benefits is exempt and not subject to the levy, and that, despite her informing d

317 A.2d 43 (1974) Herbert D. RAYNOR et al., Plaintiffs, v. LTV AEROSPACE CORPORATION, Defendant. Court of Chancery of Delaware. March 6, 1974. R. Franklin Balotti of Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, for plaintiffs Herbert D. Raynor, Harris E. Phillips and Glenn Mary Phillips. Borden B. Price, pro se. Andrew G. T. Moore, II, of Killoran & Van Brunt, Wilmi