Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Mary M. Devine”
Beverly A. Gravison v. Calvert M. Fisherpublic domain
JABAR, J. [¶ 1] This matter, like the matter of Edwards v. Blackman, 2015 ME 165, 129 A.3d 971, concerns property rights in certain oceanfront lots located in the Coopers Beach neighborhood in Owls Head. In this matter, Beverly and David Gravison appeal from a judgment entered by the Superior Court (Knox County, Hjelm, J.) denying the Gravis
People v. Darren M.public domain
856 N.E.2d 624 (2006) 368 Ill. App.3d 24 305 Ill.Dec. 819 In re DARREN M., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Darren M., Respondent-Appellant). No. 1-05-1554. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division. September 29, 2006. *627 Mi
Devine v. Statepublic domain
Appellant was convicted by a jury of robbery pursuant to V.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 29.02(a)(2).1 Her punishment was assessed by the trial court at forty years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections. The court of appeals affirmed her conviction in an unpublished opinion. Devinev. State, No. 05-85-00964-CR (Tex.App. — Dallas 1986). In her sole ground for review, appell
Devine v. Rhode Islandpublic domain
827 F.Supp. 852 (1993) Joseph F. DEVINE, John M. Carlevale, and Anthony Almonte, Plaintiffs, US PAC, a political action committee and association in and through its President, Bruce Lang, and Treasurer, Steven Richards, Daniel J. Grych, Arthur Osterhout, Robert F. Plante, Scott J. Grych, Jonathan Bell, Warren A. Pizik, Domenic Perillo, Michael M. Young, Hugh D. Auchincloss, Clifford M. Carlson, Richard Brochu, Patricia Ann Pimental, Charles Clifton C
Devine v. United Statespublic domain
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 18-871 Filed: August 3, 2021 FOR PUBLICATION TIMOTHY C. DEVINE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. Michael James Maloney, Felicello Law P.C., New York, NY, for the plaintiff. Miranda Bureau, Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom w
Matthew Eugene Devine v. Vicki Dianne Devinepublic domain
ACCEPTED 07-15-00126-cv SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Devine v. Devinepublic domain
This is an appeal by defendant from an order: (1) relating to his visitation rights with the minor child of the parties; (2) requiring increased child support payments; and (3) holding defendant in contempt for: (a) failure to keep in force a certain insurance policy on his life, in which the child was named beneficiary; and (b) for his failure to make certain past due child support payments. Plaintiff brought an action for divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty in October 1
People v. M.W.public domain
JUSTICE FREEMAN, concurring in the judgment: I agree that there was no jurisdictional impediment to the circuit court’s entry of the delinquency order in this case. I write separately because I reach that conclusion for reasons other than those set forth in today’s opinion. The issue regarding subject matter jurisdiction did not arise in this
Matter of Moquease M.public domain
Matter of Moquease M. (2025 NY Slip Op 00222) Matter of Moquease M. 2025 NY Slip Op 00222 Decided on January 15, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
People v. K.M.public domain
JUSTICE THEIS delivered the opinion of the court: Respondent father K.M.’s parental rights as to his son, D.J., were terminated pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (the Act) (705 ILCS 405/1 — 1 et seq. (West 2002)). 1 Eleven months later, respo
in the Interest of K.M.L., a Childpublic domain
Justice LEHRMANN, joined by Justice DEVINE, concurring. I join the Court’s opinion finding legally insufficient evidence that KM.L.’s mother knowingly and voluntarily relinquished her parental rights. As to K.M.L.’s father, John, I agree with the Court that the court of appeals’ judgment should be reversed, though I do not entirely agree with the Court’s reasoning. The Court invalidates
People v. F.M.public domain
PRESIDING JUSTICE WOLFSON delivered the opinion of the court: Following an adjudicatory hearing, respondent F.M. was found delinquent based on his commission of aggravated criminal sexual assault. Respondent was placed on five years’ probation and ordered to refrain from having any unsupervised contact with children under 12
People v. M.T.public domain
JUSTICE KILBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Chief Justice Thomas and Justices Freeman, McMorrow, Fitzgerald, Garman, and Karmeier concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION In this case, the minor respondent was
Devine v. Notterpublic domain
753 N.W.2d 557 (2008) 2008 WI App 87 Patrick B. DEVINE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Herman J. NOTTER and Marie T. Notter, Defendants-Appellants.[] No. 2007AP812. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. Opinion Filed May 7, 2008. Submitted on Briefs February 28, 2008. *558 On behalf of the
Devine v. City of Des Moinespublic domain
366 N.W.2d 580 (1985) Wilbur DEVINE and Karl Schilling, Appellants, v. CITY OF DES MOINES, Appellees. No. 84-1030. Supreme Court of Iowa. April 17, 1985. James E. Brick, Ann Marie Brick, and Michael J. Schroeder of Brick, Seckington, Bowers, Swartz & Gentry, P.C., Des Moines, for appellants. Nelda Barrow Mickle, City Sol., Des Moines, for appellees. <
In re Bailee M.-B.public domain
*1050In related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Orange County (Woods, J.), entered June 7, 2006, as, after a hearing, found that she neglected her children. Ordered that the fact-finding order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without co
Matter of Natalee M. (Nathan M.)public domain
Egan Jr., J.R Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Broome County (Connerton, J.), entered September 13, 2016 and January 25, 2017, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate the subject child to be neglected. Respondent Susan N. (
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO . 12-0620 444444444444 RAHUL K. NATH, M.D., PETITIONER, v. TEXAS CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AND BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, RESPONDENTS 4444444444444
ORDER RICH, Circuit Judge. National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) applies for attorney fees and expenses in connection with representing employee Zazenza Smith in an adverse action proceeding. 2 Smith ultimately prevailed in this court. Specifically, NTEU seeks attorney fees for responding to the
Matter of John M. v. Tashina N.public domain
Matter of John M. v Tashina N. (2023 NY Slip Op 03822) Matter of John M. v Tashina N. 2023 NY Slip Op 03822 Decided on July 13, 2023 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary